rm
8
BR
5
oO
m
o
c
a
2
a
4
2B
<
n
cs)
x
Zz
m
<
m
2
<
>
Se
a
ny
LEVEL TO YoU CAN NEVER
i c ATTAIN.
[. c BY MR. SORAN
+ a oO. MR. DEKLE, LET'S TALK A LIT SIT WORE ABOUT THIS
& 5 MEETING THAT YOU 44D WITH MR. SIMPSON AND VARIOUS DEFENSE
LC 3 ATTORNEYS ABCUT THE PLEA,
:
43 7O THE SCOPE OF THAT HEARING. - ~~
WOULD YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT THEY ARE?
re
: PoE
we
44 ATTGORNEVS WERE VERY ADAMENT THAT WE SHOULD 7
42 AGITATE MR. BUNDY'S ANDO MAKE HIM ANGRY.
¢ 3
o
a]
Zz
u
<
TO A SUGGESTION THAT I HAD MR. SUNS CONFESS IN
a 74 TECHNICSLOR TO "HE VARICUS CRIMES THAT HE IOMMITTED Was
15° PRETTY MUSH SHOUTED DOWN BY ALL OTHERS PRESEN™. AND THAT
c 36 PROBABLY NOT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO BE DOING IN OPEN
47 COURT, HAVING HIM DESCRIBE THE CRIMES THAT HE
18 THAT BASICALLY WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO IS GO IN THERE, PRESENT
19 THE PLEA, HAVE THE GES ENGAGE IN CUSTOMARY INTERROGATIONS
29 THAT ARE AT
‘DED PON ENTRY OF THE PLEA oF GUILTY, HAVE THE
21 PLEA ACCEPTED. Foip our TENTS, PICK UP OUR BRIEF CASES AND
22 | LEAVE THE COURTROOM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
23 Cc. PP OTHE CASE HAD GONE TRROUGH AND
24 TO TAKE THE PLEA, 18 THERE A PROCEDURAL RULE THE COURT UNSER
TEKLE ~ ~ DORAN
{ 307
C . MR. COLEMAN: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT,
{ 2 THE COURT
3 BY MR. DORAN:
a oO.
5
6 ITSELF, IN YOUR COULD HAVE TO
3 MRL ITCLEMAN:
9 |) : THE COURT: OVERRULED.
To WITNESS: I SAW NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
a EY MR. DORAN:
*2 a. SID YOU SEE ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
13 BACKGROUND OR CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT?
5 QO. THAN THE RESORT OF SOCTOR TINAY IN vUNE, FROM
c 16 THAT TIME FORWARD, WERE THERE ANY OTHER REPORTS PREPARED OR
E ‘7 ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT MIGHT
. 7
18 HAVE RAISED & RED FLAG AS TO MR. SUNDY COMPETENCY?
‘9 A. NOT SCCTOR TINAY'S REPORT. NOTHING ELSE RAISED A RED
» ABOUT MR. BUNDY'S COMPETENCE.
| a4 Oo TF YOU, IF YOu 3ID NOT RAISE THE ISSUE OF COMPETANCY 7
g 22 AFTER THAT POINT, FOR WHAT REASON?
F 23 a, i FOUND MR. 3UNSY WAS COMPETENT.
r 24 MR. DORAN: NO FLIRTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.
_
|
| as THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER MR. COLEMAN?
C 1 RECROSS EXAMINATION.
2 BY MR. COLEMAN:
\ 3] 0. FIRST OF ALL, MR. DEKLE, WERE VOU AWARE OF WKETHER THE
4 | COURT IN THE LAXE CITY CASE WAS AWARE OF 90CTOR ~INAVS
5 | REPORTS?
a) A i BELIEVE 2OCTOR TINAY'S REPORTS WERE SOME WHERE IN
7 THE DISCOVERY THAT WAS DONE IN THE CASE, AND I SELIEVE
2 | WAS AVAILASLE TO THE CCURT. 1 DON'T KNOW, I NEVE? 4a0
9 | SPOKEN TO THE JUDGE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, WHETHER HE HAD SOON
[ ‘Qo. | THE REPORT.
f “tog. BUT YOU THINK [7 WAS DART OF 7 ap
12 | HAD?
LC
— 3) | a. IT ES MY BELIEF “4aT IT WAS PART OF THE RECORD, Yes,
Th
8 QO NOW THE TWO REPCRTS THAT we FERRED TO THAT YOU SAID
b 16 YOU HAD SEEN, ONE PRIOR TO THE COMPETANCY HEARING AND ONE
7 AFTERWARDS
1e 2 THINK YOU JUST TESTI: THAT THOSE WERE THE
19 ONLY RESORTS “SAT YOU HAD OR YOU #AD
2 2c A THE ONLY WRI
4 1S THAT
ce
ia BELIEVE 1 RAD ACCESS 75
25 SUNDY, THAT HAD BEEN SERFORMED IN UTAH, O% PSYCOLSGICAL, MY
|
|
rN
oe
o
oe
o
nm
MEMORY ESCAPES ME WHICH IT WAS.
QO. OID YOU Ss
A REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY DOCTOR TINAY
DATED SEPTEMBER OF 1979; DO YOU RECALL THaT?
A. NO, 328. 1 DON'T RECALL THAT?
A. I DON'T KNOW I EVER SEEN THIS BEFORE, BASED UPON MY
DISCUSSION wITH
TINAY AND THE OTHER AESORTS BY
DOCTOR, J CAN TESTIFY SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING HE WOULD Say,
Q. MY QUESTION
YOU AT LEAST
SAW THE REPORT 47 THE TIME OF THE SENTENCING BECAUSE MR.
AFRICANO OFFERED 17 "3 THE JUDGE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A. I DON'T KNOW I READ THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT.
QUITE FREQUENT
ATTORNEYS HAND REPORTS TO JUDGES AT
SENTENCING, AND GUITE LY T NEVER LOGK AT THEM OTHER
THAN THROW THEM IN
RARBAGE.
QO. iF YOU HAD LOOKED &T THAT ONE THOUGH. YOU WOULD HAVE
SEEN SOME OPINIONS EXPRESSED ABOUT MR. BUNOY'S SANITY AND
WHETHER HE WAS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL ILLNESS: ISN'T THAT
CORRECT?
BY MR. COLEMAN:
Q. ISN'T THAT CORRECT, MR. SEKLE, WHETHER OR NOT You
J WOULD HAVE SEEN SOME OPINIONS ABOUT 4M
& MENTAL ILLNESS; ISN'T THAT COR
THAT MY UNDERSTANDING CF MENTAL TLLNESS
E
6
DEKE RECROSS ~- n AN
AND A PERSONALITY DIGORDER IS Two 3 €E5
SOMETHING IN HERE THAT SAID MR. A
PERSONALITY DISORDER. I HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED ©Y VARIOUS
PEOPLE. VARIO
a
A MENTAL ILLNESS.
o. MAY f
THAT?
DOCTOR TINAY ALSO TALKED ABOUT A TRANSIENT
TSTURBANC AS MAY BE ACCOUNTING FOR THE
BEHAVIOR;
SUT YOU BDION'T READ IT SO TT DLON'T
4E ALSO TALKS ABCUT BEING OF THE OPINION THAT IF
MR. BUNDY COMMITTED
MES AND YOU
) THAT HE DID,
ANO HAO BEEN CONVICTED IN CHI OMEGA, THAT 4E WOULD CONSIDER
HIM A MENTALLY ILL PERSON; ISN'T THAT CORRESOT?
AY “MR. OR DOCTOR TINAY EXPRESSED AN OPINION THAT IS VERY
COMMON AMONG PEOPLE THAT ANYBODY WHO COMMITS MURDER GOT TO
BE MENTALLY TLL. THAT IS A LAY OPINION THAT I HAVE HEARD
EXPRESSE 4ND T HAVE HEARD SOME PSYCHIATRIST EXPRESS THAT
ON OCCASION. THAT i3 NOT AN OPINION THAT 1 THINK IS SHARED .
BY THE VAST MAJORITY GF PSYCHIATRISTS AND THAT IS NOT AN
OPINION THAT I SHARE.
Oo. WELL, YOU ARE NOT & PSYCHIATRIS™, ane vou?
a PSYCHIATR DOCTOR TINAY'S REPORT. 31D YoU,
| B | IF YOU READ I7, LF YOU DIDN'T THROW IT IN THE GARBAGE CAN;
F 4
q 8 YOU DIDN'T ASK ANYSODY TO EXAMINE HIM. OR
: 6 | To THYS, -pID your -
E oa da. SEPTEMBER OF 1979 : NEVER
‘ 8 VOL ARE WAIVING AROUND. -
3 EVER SAW THAT RESORT IT
HEARING. NOW, IT WOULD
IMPOSSIBLE
ce Well done!
1
&
<
a
‘EG TO ASK SOMEBOOY TO RESPOND “Oo A
12 DOCUMENT “HAT T NEVER Saw IN SEPTEMBER OF 19789.
3 o. Te YOu DEON’
ee a
.
—y
4
BD
WOULD CA
L COCTGR SETER
2
Eo *
18 LEPKOVIC.
“3
26
21
ky 2° ~ -
aa 22
= 23
i
ts
wo
BS
i
HAVING BEEN CULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. MENSER:
Qo. THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION.
MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION,
SIR?
A. TAM S SHYSICIAN.
9 ERE ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED? -
A. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIO, BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE
AS THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT.
oO. “OW LING HAVE BEEN SC EMPLOYED, SIR?
A SINCE MAY, 1973
°. CCULS YOU GIVE US AN TCEA OF YOUR EDUCATION, SPECIFIC
ANOTHER YEAR OF INTERNSHIP ANO FOUR YEARS OF RESIDEN
ul
rey
<
TRAINING IN PATHOLOGY. “THAT WAS TERMINATED IN HAWATI, WITH
MY TAKING “WO BOARD EXAMS, THE
CAN BOARD OF SUINTOAL
PATROLOGY AND AMERICAN BOARD OF ANATOMICAL PATHOLOGY
APTER THAT fT STARTED TEACH
THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AS ASSISTANT OROFESSOR OF
PATHOLOGY
1389 i MOVED TO BALTIMGRE “5 ¢ MY TRAINING
IN FORENSIC PATHOLOGY, AND AFTER COMPLETING THAT ONE YEAR
MARYLAND. WHICH POSITION 2 =ELO
WHILE IN BALTIMORE I WAS TEACHING MEDICAL SCHOOL
ro)
mil
W
oO
a
iO
as
lo
uu
AT THE UNIVERSITY CF MARYLAND AS AN ASSISTANT PR
PATHOLOGY. AND AT JOHNS HOPKINS SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND
PUBLIC 4
SnD HYG
IN (373 £ VOVER TO JACKSONVILLE 72
MEDICAL EXAMINER 4ND HAVE HELD THAT POSITION SINCE THEN, AND
AT THIS POINT I AM ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PATHOLOGY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.
CLOSER "So
Q. IN THE COURSE OF YOUR MEDICAL TRAINING ANO EDUCATION
HAVE YOU HAD COURSES IN PSYCHIATRY?
AL VES, FIR. DURING wy MED
OL TRAINING, we RAD
AMONG ALL THE OTHER COURSES, COURSES IN NEUROPSYCHIATRY
ie
od
a
HTRECT ~ MENSE
&
S
c. HAVE YOU ALSO FAD SNY TRAINING IN EVALUATING
DIAGNOSEING PATI
WHO COME FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT?
A. SPEAKING ABOUT GENERAL MEDICINE, YES, SIR
Q. HAVE YOU COURT OF LAW BEFORE.
A YES, SIR
Q. HOW MANY TIMES?
A. FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS I KEEP SAVING OVER FIVE
HUNDRED TIMES, MUST 3€ SNEAXING UP 72 ABOUT ONE THOUSAND
NOW. -
Q. AND WHAT CASACITY HAVE YOU TEST? BIR?
4. AS AN EXPERT IN FORENSIC PATROLOSY.
Q. AND IN THE COURSE OF THESE ONE THOUSANO CASES, IN
) TESTIFYING IN COURT, HAVE “OU k&D YOUR
TAKEN?
4 YES, SIR
Q. GENERALLY HAVE SEEN BY ATTORNEYS?
A YES, SIF
Q. HAS YOUR DEPOSITION EVER BEEN TAXEN BY LAY WITNESS
BEFORE?
A. NO, SIR.
Q. IN THE COURSE GF YOUR ONE THOUSAND CASES OR SO, HAVE
WITH DURING THE DE°OSITION, WHETHER HE'S [NEXPERTENCED OR
EXPERIENCED OR WHA™
4 YES, 3IR.. f THINK T WENT THROUGH THE SPECTRUM OF
@
we
STATE ATTORNEYS FRESH OUT OF SCHOOL. SAME WITH THE Be
DEFENDERS OFFICE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEYS, To TRE VERY CLO, Ye
EXPERIENCED £7TORNEVYS AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN |
Qo.
CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO MAY SEVEN, 1979, WAS YOUR
DEPOSITICN TAKEN IN THE CASE OF STATE OF FLORIDA VERSUS
THE
A.
ODORE Re VNDY?
1 DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE, BUT I REMEMBER IT WAS
JAIL IN “A4LLAHASSEE. AND VES, THAT'S WHERE THE DEPOSITION
WAS TAKEN IN "79.
Q.
A.
ASS
fa
2.
GUN
B24
ra
WOULD YOU TELL VES WHO TO
MR. BUNDY WAS OUES™ TIONING ME, AND
TSTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER SI“7ING OFF TO THE SIDE. SORT OF.
YOU SEE MR. BUNDY Ih THE SQURTROON ToDAVT
VES, 312
ING AT TABLE TO MY LEFT IN A BLUE STRIPED
COULD YCU TELL US WHAT You
DY DURING T
AVE
VERAL VERY CONFLICTING MOTIONS CURING THAT
ST, SEFORE TT WAS MY FIRST TIME THAT THE SAIL DOORS KIND
CLANGEO BERINO ME, AND THAT WAS-- THAT WAS NOT & VERY
LIPKOVIC DT
276
C ° YOUNG MAN. I KNOW 1 SORT OF WTTWE TWINGE THINKING,
re
HAVING TWO DAUGHTERS, THAT I5 ONE OF THEM SROUGHT HIM HOME
f 3 FOR DINNER I WOULD HAVE HAVE &
ra
EN VERY PROUD THAT SKE HAD
a SUCH GOOD TASTE IN YOUNG MEN. ANO TREN WM
N THE QUESTIONING
or
STARTED I WAS EXTREMELY AND FAVORABLY IMPRESSED SY HIS
F 5 COMPETENCE.
~ 7 0. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT?
a 8 A. NELL. 2 OION'T EXPECT A LAYMEN ANO To RSTOCD AT
L 10 LAW SCHOOL TRAINING, 70 82 THAT FLUENT A CONVERSANT, AND
47 AE TER WE GOT INTO DETAILS, HE WAS REALLY PERSISTANT ABOUT
12 SOME VERY IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE CASE, I FELT THAT AT THE
73 TIME "EAT KIS PERFORMANCE WAS DEFINITELY IN THE, IF I WERE
| A TO RATE ALL "4E ATTORNEYS THAT DEALT WITH ME. THAT IT WOULD
° 15 SE AT LEAST IN THE THE M]DDLE OF THAT GROUP, HE WOULD BF
x} THEM, AND THAT WOULD PLACE HIM JUST
17 C™ THAT GROUP.
8 oO. “IMONY WAS, AS I UNSERSTCOD IT, CORRECT ME IF
+e i . GREATLY WITH FLY LARVAL ACTIVITIES: IS
2c THAT CORRECT?
21 A YES, SIk
22 OQ. OID MR. BUNOY TOUCH UPON THIS AREA?
23 A. MR. GUNDY WENT AND SPENT & LOT OF TIME ON THAT AREA,
SE HE APOEAR
TO BE CONVERTENT WITH TKE MEDICAL ASPECTS AND FORENSIC -
nm
o
EPKOYID = ~
IMPLICATIONS OF M TOOR PLY LARVA Ao7 A
DEDECOMPOSING SOCY
oO. WOULD VCU SAY HE MANIFESTED AN UNOERSTANONG OF THE
EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD BE GIVING AGAINS™ FIM?
A. ABSOLUTELY, YES, SIR.
» QUESTIONS, HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE RELEVANCE
ANO RATIONALITY OF THE QUESTIONS HE ASKED You IN TERMS OF
THE ISSUES OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE? —_
A. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?
Q. OKAY. LET ME REPHRASE IT. CID HE ASK OFF THE WALL
QUESTIONS OR DID HE ASK YOU ORDERED LOGICAL QUESTIONS, HOW
WOULD YOU RATE THE QUESTIONS HE ASKED vour
A. WELL, WHOLE DEPOSITION WENT IN VESY NICE and ORDERING
FASHION STARTING WITR=-- WELL, THE SAME way vou STARTED, WITH
MY QUALIFICATIONS LEADING ONTO WHAT I WAS SOING ON A DAY TO
DAY BASIS, WHAT I WAS DOING ON THE DAY WHEN ° WENT OUT TO
THE SCENE, WHAT I FOUND ON THE SCENE, WHAT [7 LOOKED LIKE,
DID I TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS, AND SO ON, AND THEN SOING ON WITH &
DESCRIPTION OF THE INJURIES, AND OBVIOUSLY "HE PARTS OF MV
TESTIMONY THAT WERE DETRIMENTAL TO HIS CLIENT HIMSELF, WOULD
t CESCRIBED BECAUSE OF SEATH, CAUSE OF
DEATH 1 ARRIVED AT, AND THE LENGTH OF TIME "HE BODY. WAS
EXPOSED THE €
EMENTS. AND I THOUGHT THAT HE DID AN
EXCELLENT JO8 TRYING TO DISCREDIT “Y TESTIMONY ON T
tf CT = MENSER
| ay8
{
q
gc ia) IN FAC™ DID HE PICK UD & PROBLEM WITH YOUR TESTIMONY?
[ t AL HE CEFINT
SCENE, I TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS AND
wo
a DION'T COME OUT. WE HAD BACK UP 2HOTORRADYS a
5 BLACK AND WHITE INSTEAD OF COLOR. THE FDLE CID HAVE
6 DUPLICATES WHICH {T WAS NOT SHOWN AT
PHOTOGRAPHS I WSS NOT SHOWN AT THE TIME CF THE DEPOSITION,
wo
3O HE DID GET “Ee INTO
8 BY INSISTING THAT THERE wAS SOME FLY LARVAL ACTIVITY OF
E 10 WHICH IT WAS NOT AWARE FR0M MY PHOTOGRAPHS. AND LATER ON
a4 AFTER DL E PHOTOGRAPHS I FOUND OUT THAT HE
2 WAS SIGHT. SOME, LIMITED, BUT RE WAS SOME.
-
N ‘2
L ta
1S
is ;
7
2 a
1¢
E 20
a]
5) 22
23
2a
— =
LIPROVIC~-DIRECT~4ENSER
419
Q. DID YOU LATER TESTIFY IN THE TRIAL?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. DURING THE COURSE OF THE TIME YOU WERE TESTIFYING, DID
YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE MR. BUNDY?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HIS ACTIVITIES LN COURT WHILE you
WERE ABLE TO OBSERVE HIM?
A. WELL, IN COURT AS OPPOSED TO THE DEPOSITION HIS
ACTIVITIES WERE, IF I CAN SAY NOT EXACTLY BECAUSE HR.
AFRICANO WAS DoINne aE CROSS EXAMINATION, AT LEAST OF AE, IS
MR. BUNDY WAS SITTING AT COUNSEL TABLE AND I DIDN'T REALLY
OBSERVE ANYTHING UNUSUAL.
Q. DID YOU OBSERVE IIH READING SAY OUT OF A MANILLA
FOLDER LiksS I’: HOLDING IN MY HAND?
A. i CAN'T REALLY SAY. IT HAS BREN NINE YEARS, ZIGHT
YEARS AGO. i DON'T RECALL, NO, SIR.
Q. DID YOU SEE HI: DO ANYTHING WITH HIS ATTORNBYS, REACT
WITH HIS ATTORNEYS? 7
A. I'H SURE THAT SOME CONSULTATION WITH MR. AFRICANO BACK
AND FORTH, BUT AGAIN, I DIDN't THINK IT WAS ANYTHING UNUSUAL
ABOUT THAT.
MR. MENSER: OKAY, I HAVE NOTHING FURTAER, YOUR
HONOR.
THE COURT: MR. COLEMAN.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER ~-
— ey
ie)
GiekOVEC-CROSB=-Ck 4UAN
420
83 _2
CROS AMINATION
BY MR. COLEMAN:
Q. GOOD ifORNING, WR. LIPKOVIC.
i TAKS I? THAT WHEN YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE PAYING
ATTENTION TO WHAT HR. AFPRICANO WAS ASKING YOU, I5 THAT
CORRECT?
A. I USUALLY TRY TO DO THAT, YES, SIR.
Q. NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW LONG THE DEPOSITION TOOX,
THIS DEPOSITION THAT MR.-BUNDY-TOOK OF you? ~~ oe
A. I NATE TO K@EP BRINGING UP THE NINE YEARS AGO, BUT I
REALLY DON'T REMEMBER. PROBABLY CLOSE TO AN HOUR, MAYBE A
LITTLE LESS. :
Q. A LITTLE LNSS THAN AN HOUR. AND CAN YOU TLL ME IF
YOUR DEPOSITION -- f4IS WAS IN MAY OF 1979, IS THAT CORRECT?
A. YES, SIR, £ WILNK So.
Q. AND YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN A SscouDp Tian, IS THAT
CORRECT? DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.
Hi
HAVE A VAGUE RECOLLECTION, BUT THAT MUST HAVE BEEW
DONE BY MR. AFRICANO, OT BY HR. BUNDY.
Q. BAACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY. IN DECEMBER OF '79?
A. YES, SIR.
aR. COLEMAN: HANK YOU. THAT'S iT,
THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT?
UR. HENSER:; NO REDIRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: HANK YOU, SIR.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
AAG JiRECL~VORAN
421
THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT; CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TINE THE STATES
WOULD CALL ROBERT LEVENTHAL TO THE STAND.
WHEREUPON:
ROBERT LEVENTHAL,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY
SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
BY WR. DORAN:
Q. MR. LEVENTHAL, WOULD YOU STATE youR NAME AND SPELL
YOUR LAST NAHE, PLEASE?
A. ROBERT LOVENTHAL. LEVENTUAL.
Q. HR. LEVENTIAL, HOW ARE YOU EMPLOYED?
A. AS AN ATTORNEY.
Q. AND WHERE DO YOU PRACTICE LAW?
A. HERE IN ORLANDO.
Q. COULD YOU TSLL US JUST BRIEFLY WUAT YOUR POST HIGH
SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND IS?
A. WENT [0 UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN, GRADUATED IN 1964, DID POST GRADUATE WORK THERE.
it) 1966 8 ATTENDED, STARTH APTENDING THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LAW SCHOOL, GRADUATED IN 1969 WITH A
J.D. DEGREE,
Q. UPON GRADUATION FROM LAW SCHOOL, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
fox
GUVENTUAL<v. RECT~DORAN
422
TO TAKE ANY BAR EXAMS?
A. I TOOK THE BAR EXAM AND RECEIVED MY RESULTS THAT I
PASSED IN NOVEMBER OF 1969, WAS ADMITTED TO THE FLORIDA BAR,
NOVEMBER, 1969.
Q. OTHER THAN PRACTICING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHAT
COURTS ARE YOU ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN?
A. I'M ADMITESD TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, FIFTH AND ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THE STATE COURTS OF FLORIDA.
Q. ARE YOU --
A. AS WELL AS THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, EXCUSE ME.
Q. UPON YOUR GRADUATION FROM LAW SCHOOL, DID YOU SEEK
EMPLOYMENT?
A. YES, i bib.
Q. AND WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST J0B?
-Ae FIRST JOB WAS WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WHILE I AWAITED MY FBI BACKGROUND
CLEARANCE TO BEGIN WORKING WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
Or JUSTICE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
Q. HOW LONG DID YOU WORK WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION?
A. APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS. -
Q. DID YOU THEN TAKE A POSITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE? - 7
A. YES, I DID.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
24
25
SEVENTHAL-DIRSCT-DORAU
423
Q. WHAT DUTIES DID YOU HAVE IN THAT JOB?
A. WELL, AS A TRIAL ATTORNEY WITH THE CRIMINAL DIVISION
OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION.
Q. AND HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THAT POSITION?
A. TO YEARS.
Q. AND OW MANY JURY TRIALS DID YOU HAVE AT THAT TIME?
A. THIRTY TO FORTY. IF I CAN EXPLAIN WHY THERE WOULD BE
SO MANY, I WAS ALSO ASSIGNED AS A SPECIAL ASSISTANT UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY POR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DURING THAT
TIME PERIOD FOR THE PART OF THE TWO YEARS.
Qo. AT TUR BMD OF THOSE TWO YBARS, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A. BECAUE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA HERE IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA IN AUGUST OF
1971.
Q. AND HOW LONG DID YOU HOLD THAT POSITION?
A. UNTIL HARCH OF 1982.
Qe APPROAIUATSLY ELEVEN YEARS?
A. YES, SIR. OS
Q. AND WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES AS ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY?
A. REGULAR DUTIES OF A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR FOR TUE
BEGINNING PART OF WY TENURE, I TRIED CASES REPRESENTING THE
UNITED STATES, FELONY TRIALS. CONDUCTED GRAND JURY
INVESTIGATIONS, PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO GRAND JURIES. DID
APPEALS WORK FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, BEFORE THE FIPTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
24
25
Ab-DIRSCT-DORAN
424
COURT OF APPEALS, BEFORE THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT STARTED, AND
THEN PRACTICED BEFORE THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DOING APPELLATE WORK.
TH LAST TWO YEARS THAT I WAS BMPLOYED WITH THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT £ WAS THE CHIEF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE ORLANDO DIVISION OF THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA. -
Q. WHAT ADDITIONAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DID YOU
HAVE-AS CHIEF ASSISTANT? - -- -
A. AS SLL AS TIS TRIAL RESPONSSILITIOS I YAS TRCINICALDY
THE ADMINISTRATIVE BEAD OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OPFICE IN
ORLANDO FOR THES REGION THAT ORLANDO COVERED.
Q. SURING THE LAST APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS OF YOUR TSNURS
AS ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, WHAT KIND OF CASES Did
YOU GENERALLY 1
A. PROSECUTED A VARISTY OF CASES, TAX CASES, FRAUD CASi33,
RACKETEERING CASES, GEIWGRALLY, AND DRUG CASES. GENERALLY
THE MORE COMPLEX CASES THAT Wi HAD IN THE OFFICE BECAUSE
i'VE BEEN THERE U NGHR.
Qe UPON LEAVING T2 WIITRD SYATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICES, NHAT
DID YOU DO?
A. SNTERED THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW IN HARCH OF 19392
HERE IN ORLANDO AND I'VZ BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE EVER
SINCE.
Qe WHAT HAS BREN THE NATURE OF YOUR PRIVATE PRACTICE?
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
Era
AL-DLRSCT~DORAN
425
A. BASICALLY A TRIAL PRACTICE IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
AND APPELLATE PRACTICE.
Q. THE APPELLATE PRACTICE IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS?
A, ‘THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND IN THE
APPEALS COURTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
Q. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY JURY TRIALS HAVE YOU HAD SINCE
YOU'VE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE?
AY IN SXCESS OF THIRTY FIVE, I THINK, OVER THE LAST FIVE
AND A HALF YEARS, PROBABLY MORE.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF CASES DO YOU HANDLE?
A. FOR THE MOST PART, THE MAJORITY OF MY PRACTICE RELATES
TO FELONY TYPE CASES, HORE SERIOUS CRIMES, WHITE COLOR
CRIMES, TAX EVASION, DRUG CASES, RACKSTEERING CASES,
GENERALLY THE TYPE OF PRACTICE THAT YOU WOULD FIND IN
FEDERAL COURTS IN A GROWING COMMUNITY.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY WHITE COLLAR CRIME, COULD YOU BE A LITTLE
MORE SPECIFIC? 7 ~
aA. FRAUD, FRAUD CASES, TECHNICAL TYPES OF PROSECUTIONS,
BACK COLLAPSES, BANK FRAUDS AND HATTERS RELATING TO MAIL
FRAUD, THINGS OF THAT NAWURE.
er WHAT TYPE OF CLIENTS DO_YOU USUALLY -- CAN YOU GIVE US
AN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND ON THE TYPE OF CLIENTS YOU HAVE?
A. AGAIN, A WIDE SPECTRUM. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT
OVER HALF MY PRACTICE RELATES TO CLIENTS THAT ARE EDUCATED
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
ab Vial Abe DIRECT IRAN
426
ABOVE THE HiGH SCHOOL LEVEL AND A MAJORITY, FALRLY LARGE
MAJORITY OF THAT WOULD BE EVEN ABOVE THE COLLEGE LEVEL WITH
ADVANCED DEGREES.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF ADVANCED DEGREES?
A. MEDICAL, ATTORNEYS, LAW DEGREES.
Q. HOW MANY ATTORNEYS HAVE YOU REPRESENTED?
A. PROBABLY FIVE TO SEVEN ATTORNEYS OVER THE LAST FIVE
YEARS.
Qe MR. LEVENTHAL, HAVE YOU DONE ANY TEACHING IN THUD ARBA
OF LAW?
A. YES, I HAVE.
Q. AND COULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR EXPERIENCE?
As WHILE I WAS ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY I WAS AN
INSTRUCTOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE WHICH IS AN INSTITUTE THAT WAS SET UP TO
TRAIN FEDERAL PROSECUTORS AROUND THE COUNTRY.
<~ ALSO LECTURED AND TALKED FOR THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AT THEIR TRAINING SEMINARS FOR
THEIR AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS. AND 1'VE LECTURED FOR THE
FLORIDA BAR AND THE ORANGE COUNTY BAR.
Qo. NAVE YOU PUBLISHED ANY LEGAL WRITINGS?
A. PUBLISHED ARTICLES FOR GE ORAWGE COUNTY BAR AND TAE
FLORIDA BAR RELATING TO TRIAL PRACTICE AND PUBLISHED
ARTICLES WHEN I WAS WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTHENT OF
JUSTICE.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
HAD-JLRECT-vURA
MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THiS TIME i WOULD
TENDER ROBERT LEVENTHAL AS AN EXPERT IN THE AREA OF CRIMINAL
TRIAL PRACTICE IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.
THE COURT: ANY VOIR DIRE?
MR. COLEMAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T SEE HOW
THIS WITNESS COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ANYTHING RELEVANT TO
TESTIFY ABOUT IN THIS CASE INVOLVING WHETHER MR. BUNDY WAS
COMPETENT, HIS MENTAL COMPETENCY IS THE ONLY ISSUE. WHETHER
THE PROCEEDINGS THAT VENT ON IN LAKE CITY SATISFY MR.
LEVENTHAL IS IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: i CAN'T SPECULATE WHAT THE QUESTIONING
WILL BE, BUT I WILL QUALIFY HIM AS AN EXPERT IN CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.
Yy DORAN: VERY GOOD, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
BY oR. DORAN:
Q. MR. LEVENTUAL, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FLORIDA RULSS
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?
A. YES, I Aw.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH RULES 3.210 AND 3.211?
A. I AM PANILIAR MiTH THESE. -
2. AND WHAT DO THESE RULES HAVE TO DO WITH?
Ae COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
Q. CAN YOU GENERALLY EXPLAIN YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF Ton
RULES?
A. THE LAW SETS UP A CRITHRIA, STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR
- UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
waV GALA AD vi RICT=DORAN
AL WELL, WHEN I FIRST START DEA
428
COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL AND THEY SET FORTH THE LANGUAGE
THAT ATTACHES TO WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF COMPETENCY TO STAND
TRIAL. AND 3.211, FLORIDA RULES OF CRIHIWAL PROCEDURE, SETS
FORTH THAT If A DEFENDANT HAS A SUFFICIENT PRESSNT ABILITY
TO CONSULT WITH HIS LAWYER WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF
RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING, AND IF HE HAS A RATIONAL AS WELL AS
A FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, THEN
HE IS CONSIDERED TO BE COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.
AND-THEY ALSO SET FORTH CERTAIN -FACTORS THAT ONE
SHOULD CONSIDER, NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THOSE FACTORS, BUT SOLE
FACTORS ONS SHOULD CONSIDER IN DETERMINING WHETHER A CLIENT
OR AN INDIVIDUAL IS COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.
Q. ARE TIGRE MRAL EQUIVALENTS TO THESE RULES?
A. Yas.
Q. IN YOUR SXPERISNCE AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, HAVE YOU
HAD OCCASION TO EXPLORE THE AREA OF COMPETENCY OF THE CLIENT
TO STAND TRIAL?
A. BOTH AS A PROSSCUTOR AND AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY I HAVE,
YES.
9. WHAT AR SIE PYPRS OF THINGS TSAL YOU WOULD LOOK FOR
AS RED FLAGS REGARDING COMPETENCY?
NG WITH A CLIENT, I'LL
DISCUSS IN NY ROLE AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHETHER OR NOT THS
CLIENT NAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE -LEGAL PROCESS THAT I5
GOING ON AROUND HIM, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE CLIENT CAN
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
WAAUm a RG tt
on,
to
429
FOLLOW HY INSTRUCTIONS, WHETHER THE CLISNY UNDERSTANDS THE
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THR
PROCEEDINGS, AND WHETHER THE CLIENT IS CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING
ANY OF THE FACTS OR THE BACKGROUND THAT HAS BROUGHT ZIM TO
MAY OFFICE.
Q. DOES YOUR REVIEW OR YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CLIENT
DIFFER DEPENDING ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION IS CASE?
A. NO, NOT AT ALL.
Q. AVS YOU SAD OCCASION AS A PROSECUTOR OR AS A DEFENSE
ATTORNEY TO BE INVOLVED IN A SITUATION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL
£8 FACING POSSIBLE INCARCERATION FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE?
A. YES.
Q. ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?
A. IN THE PEDERAL SYSTEM NUMEROUS OCCASIONS BECAUSE OF
THE VARIOUS DRUG STATUTES THAT HAVE BEEN PASSSD OVER THE
YEARS AND THE VERY SERIOUS PENALTIES THAT ATTACHED TO THE
CONVICTION UNDER THOSE VARIOUS LAWS, AND i'V@ REPRESENTED
INDIVIDUALS IN STATE COURT THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Q. ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS HAVE YOU REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALS
CHARGED WITS MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREI?
AB THO TIMES. oe .
Q. DID SITHER OF THOSE CASES GO TO TRIAL?
A. ONE VENT TO TRIAL AND ONE WOUND UP WITH A PLEA
BARGAIN.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
bo 2a
SUVENTMAL~DiRSCT-DORAM
r
430
Qe IN YOUR EXPSRISNCE -- LET ME ASK YOU THIS. HAVE ANY
OF THESE CASES THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE COLLEGE EDUCATED OR
PROFESSIONALS?
A. YES.
Q. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY?
A. YOU'RE SAYING FACING A LIFE PENALTY OR SERIOUS
PENALTIES?
Q. WELL, LET'S STICK RIGHT NOW WITH A LIFE PENALTY.
A. I PROSECUTED A CASE THAT I CAN RECALL WHERS AN
INDIVIDUAL WAS FAIRLY WELL EDUCATED AND WHO WAS PACING A, I
THINK EITHER A LIFE OR A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FIVS YSARS, IT
WAS A MURDER OF A POSTMISTRESS.
Qe. AND WHAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF THE STATE'S CASE?
A. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE. THERE WERE, OF COURSE,
NO WITNESSES LEFT BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS MURDERED.
Q. WERE THERE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS UNDERTAKEN IN THAT CASE?
A. NO. a
Q. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU'VE HAD OTHER SERIOUS CASES.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOU DEFINE SERIOUS PENALTIES?
A. {£ CONSIDER THAT ANY TIME ANY CLIENT £6 SACING A P®RIOD
OF INCARCERATION OR IS FACING A FELONY CONVICTION AND iF
THEY'RE A PROFESSIONAL, THEY WOULD THEREBY LOSE THEIR
LICENSE TO DO WHATEVER THEY DO, SUCH AS PRACTICE LAW OR
PRACTICE HEDICINE, THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS CASE.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
[
LSVENTIAL-oLRECT-DORAN
431
Q. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION IN THOSE SERIOUS CASES TO
UNDERTAKE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS?
As YES, I HAVE.
Q. AND IN ANY OF THOSE CASES, HAS THE SITUATION AROSE
WHERE A PLEA BARGAIN WAS INITIALLY AGRBED UPON AND THEN
ABANDONED?
A. I'VE HAD SITUATIONS I THINK REPEATEDLY OVER THE YZARS
WHERE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH AND THE CLIENT
_OR CLIENTS HAVE VASCILLATED AS TO WHAT THEIR PROPER COURSE
OF CONDUCT SHOULD BE.
Q. DID THAT VASCILLATION IN YOUR VIEW RAISES A QUESTION OF
THEIR COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL?
Ae NO. I THINK WHAT THEY SHOWED IS THAT THEY WERE VERY
COMPETENT AWD THEY UNDERSTOOD THE SERIOUS NATURE OF THE
PROCESDINGS AND THE ABSOLUTS FINALITY TO A PLEA AGREEMENT
WHICH WOULD MAKE THEM A CONVICTED FELON AiD POSSIBLY CAUSE
THEM TO GO TO JAIL.
Q. LET ME GO BACK A MINUTE TO THE FSLONY YoU SAY YOU
PROSECUTED, TH MURDER, POSTMISTRESS. THR CASE WAS MAINLY
CIRCUMSTANTIAL?
a. If WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
Qo. WAS T32 DAPENDANT CONVICTED IN IAT CASS
A. iF I CAN STATE, THE FEDERAL SIDE OF THE PROSECUTION,
WHICH I TRIED FIRST AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, DEALT WITH THE
BURGLARY OF THE POST OFFICE, THE THEFT OF POSTAL MATERIAL.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
~ ai
24
25
LIEVENTHAL-DIRECT-DORAN
THE STATE FOLLOWED MY PROSECUTION AND ACTUALLY TRIND THE
INDIVIDUAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE. WE CONDUCTED THE
INVESTIGATION ON THE FEDERAL SIDE.
2. IN YOUR OPINION AS A PROSECUTOR, IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE CASG A MORE DIFFICULT CASE TO PROSECUTE THAN ONE
INVOLVING EYEWITNESSES?
A. YES.
Q. IN YOUR OPINION AS AN APPELLATE ATTORNEY, IS IT MORE
DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION on APPEAL WHERE TIE
EVIDENCE IS PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL, OR CAN I? BE?
A. I THINK iT CAN BE. IT REALLY ONLY RELATES TO THE
ACTUAL FACTS IN THE CASE, BUT THERE MAY BS A MORE DIFFICULT
ROLE THAT THE STATE WOULD HAVE TO PLAY AND A BURDEN THE
STATE WOULD HAVE TO WERT IN A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE.
Q. IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD IT BE UNREASONABLE OR OUT OF
HAND FOR A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A VERY SERIOUS OFFENSE oR
A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE THAT WOULD LEAD TO LIFE
IMPRISONMENT TO REJECT A PLEA WHERE THE CASE WAS BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANTIAL SVIDENCE?
A. IT WOULDN'T 35 UNUSUAL AT ALL.
Q. HAVE YOU NAD SUCH EXPSRLIBNCES?
Ae I'vii HAD EXPERIENCES AS A DEFENSE ATTORALY WHERE
CLIENTS WAVE REJECTED WHAT I CONSIDERED REASONABLE AND FAIR
PLEA OFFERS FOR RSASOUS TAT DIDN'T HAKE A WHOL LOT OF
SENSE TO NE, BUT Div TO THE CLIENT.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
L
b
FEA
24
25
SEVEN WIAL= oi RICT~.
Qe
A.
AT
COULD YOU GIVE US All BXAMPLS?
HAD OCCASION IN A MURDER PROSECUTION WHDRE ulY CLIZNT,
THE BEGINNING OF COURSE WAS FACING THE DEATH PENALTY, BUT
TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROCEEDING IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TRIAL
qE
IN
WAS ONLY FACING A MINIMUM MANDATORY OF TWENTY FIVE Ya@ARS
JAIL, NO LONGER THE DEATH PENALTY, AND THERE WERE PLEA
NEGOTIATIONS WHICH I FELT WERE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE
CLIENT ABSOLUTELY REJECTED THEM AND WANTED TO PROCEED To
TRIAL.---THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY TEN BYEWITNESSES TO THE
MURDER.
Q. WHAT WAS THE CLIENT'S REASONS FOR WANTING TO GO TO
TRIAL? :
A THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY JiTI. NE WAS
ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THAT THE MURDER WAS NOT PREMEDITATED IN
LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CAS, &ND TH8 YOUNG MAN
WANTSD TO GO TO TRIAL IN SPITE OF TH
PACT THAT HE COULD
HAVE SPENT THE NEXT TWENTY FIVE YEARS IN JAIL.
Q.
IN THAT CASH, DID YOU RAISE THE QUESTION OF HIS
COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL WITH THE COURT?
NO, BECAUSE If WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR ME
RAISE THE ISSUR RECAUSE HS WAS COoMPET
"0 STAND TRIAL.
suse HAD DITFERENT VIEWS ON THE EVIDENCS THAN £ DID AND
HAD A DIFFERENT VIEW ON HOW HE WANTED To SPEND THE REST
HIS LIFE THAN I DID, AND THAT WAS HIS CHOICE.
IN YOUR OPINION, DOES RULE 3.211 OF THE FLORIDA RULES
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
be
to
SV SNTHAL~DiRECT-VORAN
OF CRIMINAL PROCZOURZ PROTECT A DEFENDANT PROM EXERCISING
BAD JUDGMENT?
a. ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT ONLY PROTECTS THE DEFENDANTS WHO
ARE INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL.
Q. IS A DEFENDANT INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL BECAUSE HE
FEELS THAT THE STATE'S CASE IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND
POTENTIALLY NOT SUSTAINABLE?
A. NO.
Q. IS A. DEPENDANT INCOMPETENT BECAUSE HE INITIALLY AGREES
TO PLEAD GUILTY TO SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN JAIL, BUT
THEN RENEGES ON THE PLEA?
A. NO, SIR. : a
Q. WOULD THE FACT THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF THREE DEATH
SENTENCES PACED MIM CHANGE YOUR VIEW?
A. No.
Q. WHY NOT?
A. THERE ARE SOME FACTORS THAT I THINK A CLIENT WOULD
WSIGH THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT A LAWYER WOULD WEIGH IN
ACCEPTING A PLEA AGREEMENT, SPENDING THE REST OF ONE'S LIFE
BEHIND BARS WITH NO CHANCS OF EVER GETTING OUT AGALIH 18
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE FAIRLY DIFFICULT FOR ANYBODY NoT
FACING THAT SITUATION TO DBAL WITH, AND THAT'S WHERE £ THINK:
LAWYERS HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THEIR CLIENTS AND
CLIENTS MAY HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THEIR LAWYERS
WHEN THEY'RE DEALING WITH POTENTIAL PLEA BARGAINS IN THOSE
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
TUAL-DIRECT=-SORAN
435
| 1 AREAS.
¢ 2 Q. I ASK YOU TO REFER TO RULE 3.211, THE PARTICULAR
3 CRITERIA, IF YOU WOULD, SPECIFICALLY SUBSECTION ONE A. IF
es
YOU WOULD, WOULD YOU PLEASE RUN THROUGH THOSE AND GIVE TIE
5 COURT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY DEAL WITH?
3 6 MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS A WASTE
7 OF TIME. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT HAS TO DETERMINE MR.
8 BUNDY'S COMPETENCE, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR TH# COURT TO DECIDE,
AND {£ DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED ANY ASSISTANCE FROM A LAWYER
E 10 WHO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS IN THIS CASE.
11 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 3.211 WILL SPEAK FOR
12 ITSELF.
13 WR. DORAN: VERY GOOD.
14 YOUR HONOR, LI TENDER THE WITNESS FOR CROSS
L 15 EXAMINATION.
E 16 TRE COURT: WE'LL TAKE TEN MINUTE RECESS.
| 17 (BRIEF RECESS.)
E 18 THE COURT: MR. COLEMAN.
SROSS = ATION
20 | BY HR. COLBMAN: ;
E 21/ 9. GOOD MORNING, MR. LEVENTHAL.
E 22] A. soop MORNING. -
; 23| Q. ALL RIGHT. YOU SAID ANONG THE THINGS THAT YoU DISCUSS
E 24 | WITH YOUR CLIENT AT THE VERY BEGINNING IS THE PACTS AND THE
[ - 25 | BACKGROUNDS THAT BROUGHT YOUR CLINT INTO THE OFFICE, IS
{ ~ _ UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
436
THAT CORRECT?
A. Ir I CAN, YES. I TRY TO DISCUSS THE FACTS, IF THEY
EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE THERE.
Q. AND WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT?
A. DON'T WANT TO SEE GROSS OR ANYTHING LiKE THAT, SUT
PART OF WHAT I WANT TO FIND OUT IS HOW LONG THE PROCEEDINGS
ARE GOING TO LAST, I WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH I SHOULD CHARGE
AS A FEE.
2. SO_THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU WANT. TO ANON?
A. NO, YOU DIDW'T ASX ME THE ONLY REASON. YOU SAID WHY
pO I DO THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS.
I LIKE TO FIND OUT WHAT I'l GETTING MYSELF INTO
BEFORE if AGREE TO REPRESENT SOMEONE. I GON'T HAVE T
REPRESENT SOMBONS IF ¢ DON'T WANT To.
Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER REASONS FOR ASKING ABOUT THE
FACTS?
A. YES. I'D LIKES TO FIND OUT HOW LONG THE INVESTIGATION
HAS BEEN GOING, AND I WANT TO FIND OUT PRELININARILY IF THE
CLISNT HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY CHARGED Y=T,
BTIER OR NOT
THSRE iS ANYTHING THAT I CAN OFFER Sia IN THE Way OF LEGAL
SERVICES AT THAT POINT IN TIME. <I ALGO WANT TO SET UP SOME
“TYPR OF RABBORT BEUWEEN WYSELF aNbD ‘im POVESNTIAL CLIENT, AND
ANYTHING THAT £ CAN LEARN ABOUT Siu AND HIS ABILITIES TO
DISCUSS HIS SXYTUATION OR THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE SLTUATION
iS GOING TO BE HELPFUL TO HE.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
?
LEVENTHAL-CROS S-COLDMAN
437
Q. DO YOU MAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MR. 3UNDY'S DEALINGS
WITH HIS LAWYERS CONCERNING THE PLEA IN THIS CASE?
A. THE ONLY KWOWLEDGE I NAVE ABOUT THIS CASE IS WHAT I
HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY {HE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN THE
WAY OF TRANSCRIPTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO READ, VIDEO TAPES
THAT I HAVE VISWED AND AUDIO TAPES THAT I iUAVE LISTENED TO
PRIOR TO COMING INTO COURT TODAY.
Q. SO YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ASOUT HIS DEALINGS
WITH HIS LAWYERS IN CONNECTION WITH TYE SUPMAT ”
CORRECT?
A. OF COURSE Nov.
MR. COLEMAN: THAT'S ALL I HAVE. :
THE COURT; ANY REDIRECT?
HR. DORAN: VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
BY HR. DORAN:
Q HR. LEVENTHAL, WOULD YOU REVIEW YOUR, IF A CLIENT CAME
IN, WOULD YOU REVIEW HIS COLLEGE GRADES?
A. NO.
ery WOULD YOU ASK HIM ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS
GRAND PATIGR?
Ae NO.
Qe WOULD YOU ASK HIM IF HE EVER DID ANYTHING UNUSUAL WHEN
HE WAS THRESH YEARS OLD?
Ae NO, UNLESS THE ALLEGED CRIs CHARGED RELATED TO
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
SOVENTAAL-RSEDIRECT-DORAN
SOMETHING THAT WOULD KEY ME INTO THAT TIME PERIOD OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE RELEVANT TO My
INITIAL CONTACT OR ANY REAL CONTACTS THAT I WOULD HAVE WITH
THE CLIENT.
Q. WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK FOR
INITIALLY iN YOUR FIRST EVALUATION OF A CLIENT?
A. THE FIRST THING THAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS, NUMBER ONE,
JUST A GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE CLIENT, WHAT iS THE CLIENT
DOING FOR A LIVING, WHAT IS HIS FAMILY BACKGROUND, IS HE
MARRIED, DOES HE HAVE CHILDREN, HOW LONG HAS HE LIVED IN THE
COMMUNITY. A LOT OF THE THINGS I'M INTERESTED IN OBTAINING
FROM THE CLIENT RELATES TO THE POSSIBLE ISSUE OF BAIL AND I
WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT HIS TIES TO THE COMMUNITY ARE. ~
AND AT THE SAME TIME WHEN YOU GET AN INDIVIDUAL
TALKING ABOUT THSSS VARIOUS TIES TO THE COuMUNITY, YOU THEN
ARE BUILDING UP A RAPPORT WITH THE CLIENT WHICH IS VERY
IMPORTANT. NOT ONLY AM I SIZING UP MY CLIENT, {THE CLINT IS
SIZING UP ME AT THE TIE.
HR. DORAN: THANK YOU. I HAVE NO OTUDR QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: iIR. COLBHAN. a
WR. COLEMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTLONS, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
HR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THE STATE
WOULD CALL THE HONORABLE WALLACE JOPLING TO THE STAND.
= UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
|
|
JOPLING-DIRUCT~DORAN
439
WALLACE M. JOPLING,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY
SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DORAN:
Q. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?
A. WALLACE M. JOPLING.
“OQ. WOULD YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? —_ a 7
A. gTOPLING.
Qe MR. JOPLING, HOW ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED?
A. I'd A CIRCUIT JUDGE, THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF
FLORIDA.
Q. WHAT IS THE GEOGRAPHICAL PARAMETERS OF THE TMIRD
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT?
Ae SEVEN COUNTIES IN NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA.
ao. DOES THAT INCLUDE COLUMBIA COUNTY?
Ae YES.
2 NOW LONG HAVE YOU SEEN A CiRCULT JUDGE?
Ae SINCE JANUARY, 1977. . _
Q. WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF A CIRCUIT JUDGE IN THE STATE OF
" pLORIDA? : : : ; ;
Ae IT'S A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION. WE TRY CIVIL,
ALL CIVIL CASES OMWIER THAN THOSE TRIED IN SHALL CLAIMS COURT
OR COUNTY COURT. PROBATE, MARITAL RELATIONS, DOMESTIC
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
v OVO dG LRECT~DJORAN
4agQ
RELATIONS AND FELONY CASES.
Q. DO THOSE FELONY CASES INVOLVE CASES OF FIRST DEGREE
MURDER?
A. YES, IT DOES.
Q. DO THEY INVOLVE FIRST DEGREE HURDERS INVOLVING THE
DEATH PENALTY?
A. YES. -
Q. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO TRY FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASES
INVOLVING THE DEATH PENALTY?
A. I HAVE.
Qo. ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?
A. FOUR.
Qo. WAS ON OF THOSE OCCASIONS TUE CASE OF THE STATS OF
FLORIDA VERSUS THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY?
A. IT WAS.
Q. JUDGE, I's GOING TO ASK YOU TO LOOK AROUND THE
COURTROOM AND TELL U8 IF YOU CAN SES MR. BUNDY IN THE
COURTROOM TODAY.
A. YES, I DO.
Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE ZDNNTIFY HIM FOR THE RECORD?
A. MR. BUNDY IS THE GENTLEMAN SEATED AT THE TABLE OVER
THERE WITH THE BLUE SHIRT WLTH WHITE STRIPES SITTING WITHOUT
A TIER.
Q. WHEN IS THE FIRST TLE YOU SAW WR. BUNDY?
Ae IT WAS IN THE LATE SUMMER OR EARLY FALL OF 1978.
UNITED STATSS COURT REPORTER
44.
Qe AND WHAT WAS THS PURPOSE OF THAT HEETING?
A. IT WAS HIS ARRAIGNMENT ON THE CHARGE OF FIRST DEGREE
MURDER IN COLUMBIA COU?TY.
Q. YOU SUBSEQUENTLY HAD A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS TO SEE MR.
BUNDY, DID YOU NOT?
A. I DID, OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT FIFTEEN MONTHS.
Q. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, DID YOU PREPARE OR
DO YOU HAVE WITH YOU A LIST OF THOSE APPEARANCES?
A. I HAD ONE PRI
RED. YES, IT IS HERD.
Q. ~ YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH THE BENCH?
THE COURT: YES, SIR.
Q. JUDGE JOPLING, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU A COPY OF WHAT
I'VE JUST HANDED
OD THE COURT. IS THAT A
COMPARISON OF WHAT YOU'Vs GOT THERE?
Q. AND THAT LISTS THE DATES AND THE TIMES OF NEARINGS
WHERE MR, BUNDY APPEARED BSFORE YOU? -
Ae YES. I DON'T BELIEVES if I8 ENTIRELY COMPLETE, BUT IT
IS REPRESENTS A MAJORITY OF THE occasions wwttcH HE APPEARED
BEFORE ME. |
Q. | VARY GooD.
WHO WAS HR. BUNDY CHARGED WITH HURDESRING IN THE
CASE THAT WAS ABLD BEFORE YOU?
A. KIMBERLY LEACH.
Qe PRIOR TO TRIAL, APPROXIMATELY yOW MANY TIMES DID MR.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
Uda dian REC 2-GORAM
442
BUNDY APPEAR BEFORE YOU?
AY I WOULD SAY AT LEAST SIXTEEN OR BIGHTEEN TIMES.
Q. HOW LONG DID THE TRIAL LAST?
A. FIVE WEEKS.
Q. APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG WAS THE JURY SELECTION?
A. TWO WEEKS.
Q. DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION PRIOR TO TRIAL TO CONVENE FOR
THS PURPOSES OF A PLEA, ACCEPTING A PLEA OF GUILTY ON MR.
BUNDY'S BEHALF?
A. YES, I DID, TOGETHER WITH JUDGE COWART OF THE SLEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CHI OMEGA CASE.
Qo. WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE COURT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASICS OF THAT PLEA BARGAIN?
A. HY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT MR. BUNDY WOULD ACCEPT AND
ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY TO THREE CHARGZS OF FIRST DEGRED
MURDER, KIMBERLY LEACH MURDER AND THE TWO CHI OMEGA MURDERS,
IN RETURN FOR THE STATE NOT SEEKING THE DEATH PENALTY AND SE
WOULD BE RECEIVE THREE LIFE SENTENCES.
Q. AND WOULD HE HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE UNDER THAT
AGREEMENT?
A. No.
Q. OXAY. WHAT HAPPENED OURING THAT SEARING?
A. I AND SUDGE COWART MET IN TALLAYASSEE, WE CONVENED
COURT JOINTLY. UR. BUNDY CAME IN AND WE WERE IN BXPECTATION
OF THE PLEA-BEING ENTERED AND THE USUAL DIALOGUE BE ENGAGED
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
JOP2LING=DIRBCT=1
443
IN BETWEEN THE COURT AND MR. BUNDY, BUT HE AT THR MOMENT
WHEN THAT WAS STARTING, HE AROSE AND BEGAN TO READ FROM A
PAPER ATTACKING MR. MINERVA, HIS COUNSEL, AND CLAIMING THAT
MR. MINERVA WAS NOT CONVINCED OF HIS INNOCENCE AND WAS Nor
STRONGLY ENOUGH CONTESTING IT FOR HIM.
WHEN THAT WAS DONE, THEN THE STATE ATTORNEY FOR
{HE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, I UNDERSTAND, I DID NOT HEAR
THIS, BUT WITHDREW THE OFFER OF A PLEA AND THE HEARING WAS
VERY SUMMARILY TERMINATED. - -
Q. JUDGE JOPLING, YOU MENTIONED THE PLEA COLLOQUY. couLD
YOU JUST BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLEA COLLOQUY
UNDER FLORIDA LAW?
MR. COLEMAN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
AR, DORAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS BROUGHT ou'r IN
WR. WINERVA'S TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SIMILARITY BurweEN
CRITERIA FOR ENTERING A PLEA AND A CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINATION OF COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL AND I'D Likz TO
GET THE JUDGE'S KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
A. NORMALLY THE DEFENDANT WHO IS ENTERING THE PLEA, IN uy
COURT AT LEAST, THE PLEA IS IN WRITING, I REQUIRE AT ALL
TIMES TIAT If BE IN WRITING, i THINK THAT'S CUSTOMARY, WIC
SETS OUT TUE TERMS OF THE PLEA, Tun JUDGE SWEARS TUR
UFENDANT, QUNSTIONS HIM IN REGARD TO HIS AGE, 'is
EDUCATION, HIS BACKGROUND, WHAT EMPLOYMENT WEB'S HAD, WHETHER
_|
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
JOP Laima.
444
1 HE HAS HAD ANY NERVOUS OR MENTAL DISORDER OF ANY KIND, IF
2 HE'S HAD ANY DRUGS WITHIN THE LAST TWENTY FOUR OURS,
3 ADVISES HIM OF THE RIGHTS THAT HE HAS, INQUIRES AS TO
4 WHETHER THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO FREELY AND
5 VOLUNTARILY OR ANY PRESSURE WAS PLACED UPON HIM, INQUIRES AS
6 TO WHETHER HE WAS PROMISED ANYTHING TO ENTER INTO THE
7 AGREEMENT, AND INQUIRES AS TO, IF HE'S REPRESENTED BY AN
8 ATTORNEY, IF HE'S SATISFIED WITH HIS LAWYER, THE WAY HE'S
9 REPRESENTED HIM UP TO THAT POINT, AND DOES HE ADMIT. TAE
10 CHARGES. ALWAYS HAVE THE STATE RECITE BRIEFLY WHAT THEY ARE
il PREPARED TO PROVE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLEA. AND THEN
3°S OFFERED THE CHANCE -- THEN HE'S ASKED DOES HE ADMIT TO
13) (NIN PACTS AS STATED.
14]. 00 THESE INQUIRIES THAT YOU MAKE PALL UNDER A
15 | PARTICULAR RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE? -
16] A. VES, THEY DO, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE RULE RIGHT OFF
17| TUS TOP OF MY HEAD.
18| Q. AFTER THE STATE CALLED OFF THE PLEA BARGAIN, DID YOU
19 | HAVE FURTHER OCCASION TO HAVE MR. BUNDY APPEAR IN FRONT OF
20 YOU IN COURT?
al A. OH, YES.
22 Q. PRIOR TO TRIAL? -
23 ae YES, ON SEVERAL OTUSR OCCASIONS.
- 24 Qe. AND COULD YOU DESCRIBES } ASIONS
25 WERE?
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
FQ iad TG DLRACT= DRA
4450!
A. WELL, ON ONE OCCASION I RSWESBER IT VAS, £'2 WOT SURE
WHETHER THIS WAS SEFORE OR AFTER THAT USARING. I THINK IT
WAS AFTERWARDS. WE HAD A THREE DAY HEARIHG ON WHETHER HB
WOULD BE ALLOWED, WHETHER MR. MILLARD FARMER OF GEORGIA
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPEAR PRO HOC VICE AS HIS COUNSEL in
THIS MATTER, AND THAT WAS A VERY LENGTHY HEARING.
WE HAD SEVERAL HEARINGS ON SUPPRESSION OF
SVIDENCE, ON FINANCES AND NUMEROUS OTHER MATTERS.
Q. YOU DENIED THE HOTION TO ADMIT MR. MILLARD FARMER, DID
YOU NOT?
A. I bid.
Q. AT THAT POINT DID MR. BUNDY REPRESENT HIMSELF?
A. THERE WAS A LAWYER FROM MIAMI WHO APPEARED AND WAS, £
THINK WAS REPRESENTING UR. PARMDR REALLY RATUSR THAN IR.
BUNDY. MUR. BUNDY APPEARSD AND DID STRONGLY CONTEST FOR ik.
FARMER BEING ALLOWED TO APPRAR ON HIS BEHALF, BUT THERE WAS
ALSO ANOTHER COUNSEL THAT WAS REPRESENTING dR. FARMER IN
THAT MATTER.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
ro
a
i
o
4a &
THAT HEARING, CR J THOUGHT MOTION.
WHO REPRESENTED “MR. BUNDY?
A. VIC AFRICANC.
QO. HOW 970 MR. AFRICANO COME TO RESRESENT MR. BUNDY?
A. T APPOINTED HIM,
Q. I WANT YOU TO TURN YOUR ATTENTICN. TO THE GURY
SELECTION PHASE OF THE TRIAL.
THERE HAS 3
TESTIMONY IN THIS COURT THAT
TOWARDS THE END OF THAT SELECTION THERE WAS AN OUTBURST BY
MR. SUNOY REGARDING CHALLENGE TO A JUROR? SO YOU RECALL
THAT EVENT?
A. YES I DO.
°. WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THAT SYVENT
TO THE COURT?
A. 2 HAD ALLOWED ZAoH SIDE TWICE THE NUMBER OF
PEREMPTORYS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY STATUTE BECAUSE OF THE WIDE
PUBLICITY OF MR. SUNDY AND HIS PROBLEMS.
WHEN THE DEFENSE HAD EXHAUSTED
THEIR 20TH PEREMPTORY
ENGE, AND I DENTE THEIR
CHALLENGE OF CAUSE FOR & ZUROR WHICH WOULD RAVE GEEN THE
"2TH JUROR CONST
ANO MR, BUNDY CAME 7G TRE BENCH AND ARGUED VOCIFERIOUSLY
WITH ME FOR A FEW MCMENTS AND THEN I MAINTAINED THE DENIAL
HIS COAT AND SAID I AM LEAVING
reso SS
3
a
THE COURTROOM 4ND STARTED TOWARD THE TOWARD
INTERRUPTED 8Y BAILIFFS THERE, AND THE WHOLE =PISCDE LASTED
LESS THEN FIVE MINUTES. KE TOOK HIS SEAT. MR. AFPRICANO
EXPLAINED TO HIM, AND CALMED HIM DOWN, AND HE TOOK HIS
SEAT.
WAS THE ENO OF THAT OUTBURST?
A, THAT'S RIGHT, WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I NEVER AT ANY
TIME HEARD ANY SLURRED LANGUAGE OR ANYTHING ON MR. BUNDY'S
PART THAT APPEARED HE WAS ANYWAY BUT A NORMAL PERSON. HE
WAS AGITATED ABOUT THE
fS. BUT HE HAD NO SLURRED
SPEECH OR ANY OTHER
THAT HE WAS NOT IN FULL
O
O. LET ME ASK YOU TURNING TO THAT AREA.
HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO SEE IND
UNDER THE INFLUANCE OF ALCHOLOL GR DRUGS?
A. YES, ~ HAVE.
Q. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION THE SEE SUCH INDIVIDUALS APPEAR
BEFORE YOU IN COURT?
A. ~~ YES, T HAVE. 7 7 ~
¢ INTOXICATED IN COURT? ~
A. EVEN A USWYER ONE TIME. _
GO. WHAT WOULD BE THE TYPES GF THINGS THAT WOULD, YOU
WOULD LOOK FOR TO DETERMINE TF 4 PERSON WAS INTOXICATED?
MR. COLEMAN: WE CON
EXPERTISE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION.
@
oO
©
n
aap
TWILL ACCES™ Ty
< TAKE [T-- I 30N'7 KNOW HOW TO TAKE
THAT QUALIFICATION. J DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO TAKE THAT
QUALTS
CATION.
BY VR. DORAN:
O. - YOUR HONCR, AT ANY TIME IN THE MANY HEARINGS,
PRE-TRIAL. DURING THE TRIAL, POST TRIAL, DIO YOU EVER NOTICE
DY WAS
OR RAYE ANY INDICATION THEODORE RCEERT 2
INFLUENCE OF ALCHOLOL? ~
A. NEVER DID £ SEE HIM EXHIBIT ANY SVISENCES OF ANY
CONSUMPTION OF HOLOL, DRUGS, OR ANYTH iT WAS
ALL NORMAL SEHAVIOR.
G. TF YOU =4D GEEN SUCH BEHAVIOR WOULD fO YOU THINK You
WOULD HAVE DONE?
A. WELL. 2 WOULO HAVE IMMEDIATELY BEFCRE THE JURY, OF
COURSE EXCUSED THE JURY, AND WOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING
AS YO WHAT 23
AND SEARO HIM, AND COUNSEL
AND GONE INTO 17, INVESTIGATED wreen7 =
CONDITION WAS.
a. FIVE WEEXS INCLUDING THE JURY SELECTION
Q. HOW ABOUT THE TRIAL PHASE ITSELF?
A. THAT WAS THREE WEEKS
oO. WAS MR. IN COURT?
A. EVERY DAY.
2
we
bo
aag
Q. WHAT ROWE DIG MR. SUNDY PLAY IN HIS OWN DEFENSE DURING
THE TRIAL?
A. MADE VERY ACTIVE ROLE, CONSTANTLY CONFERRING WITH KIS
COUNSEL DURING PROCEEDINGS WHEN THEY WERE CONDUCTING THINGS,
AND HE AT VARIOUS TIMES TOOK PART VERY CCOGENTLY ANC
LOGICALLY AND COAERENTLY IN ARGUMENTS BEFORE ME.
QO. WHEN YOU SAY BEFORE YOU. WAS THE JURY PRESENT?
AY ME OTD ih SOME MATTERS BEFORE THE JURY, I CAN
THINK OF
‘ INSTANCES WHERE IN CHAMBERS HE MADE VERY”
COGENT ARGUMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE APPLICATION WICLIAMS
RULE, STATE WAS INDEVERING TO INTRODUCE SOME SIMILIAR FACT
EVIDENCE AND HE DID LOGICALLY CITE THE WILLIAMS RULE, AND
STATE VERSUS WILLIAM WHICH EXCLUDES
, WHICH ALLOWS SIMILIAR
CIRCUMSTANCES TO SHOW IDENTITY
, COMPARE THEM WITH THE FACT
TO INTRODUCE. AND DID SO LOGICALLY THAT
BEHAVIOR OF ANY OLTESUPET DURING TRE TRIAL
PHAGE?
A. OTHER THAN THAT ©
1 SAW NOT
RE WAS
TO THE SENTENCING PHASE OFTHE
25
°
o
nm
TRIAL.
WHAT SOLE STO MR. BUNDY SLAY SURING THE SENTENCING
PHASE, FIRST IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND THEN IN FRONT OF VOUS
A. WELL, ME PLAYED A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN 30TH
INSTANCES. HE GF COURSE CALLED MISS CAROL BOON AS A WITNESS
ON HIS BEHALF IN THE PENALTY PHASE, ANO OUESTIONED HER, AND
HAD HER TESTIMONY CONCERNING HIS CHARACTER AND REPUTATION AS
SHE KNEW 17. TYPE OF PERSON HE WAS. HE V
OBJECTED
THAT ARE PROPOUNG
ON GROUNDS
PROPERLY CROSS EXAMINATION, WHICH
WAS VERY WELL MADE AND I UPHELD, HE MADE & STATEMENT HIMSELF
ON THINGS THAT. OF COURSE THEN CONDUCTED THE MARRIAGE
CEREMONY |
S TALA FOR aN ABOUT MINUTE ABGUT 7
WERE YOU AWARE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ATTEMPT
THAT DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE?
A. NOT AT Bue. 2 KNEW THAT HE HAD ASKED FOR It, AND I
HAD GIVEN HIM PE
TS GET A BLOOD TEST. i WAS LEAD TO
BELIEVE SOME TIME IN
SE TRIAL,
AND WENT SACK TO
ENGAGE IN
SUCH A CEREMONY.
°. DID HE APPEAR TO SINCERELY WISH TO BE MARRLZD?
A. WHAT IS THAT?
9. ID NE APPEAR vO TO
a. T COULD ONLY BASE THAT ON WHAT WENT ON IN OPEN COURT,
to
io
~ OTRECT - DORAN
£61
AND T DON'T SNOW WHETHER 7 CAN ANSWER THAT OR NOT.
QO. MR. BUNDY STATED HE PRESENTED ARGUMENT TO YOU DURING
THE PENALTY PHRASE AFTER THE JURY RETURNED A RECOMENDATION?
A. YES.
Oo
WHAT “VYPE OF ARGUMENT OID HE PRESENT TO YOU?
A. IT. WSS MUCH SOME AS HE PRESENTED TO THE JURY. THAT
TESTIMONY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, AND THAT HE WAS BEING PERSECUTED, THAT SORT
OF THING. : _ oe : a
Q. JUST TO CLARIFY THIS. THE ARGUMENT HE MADE TO YOU WAS
THE SAME ARGUMENT HE MADE TO THE JURY?
A. NOT IDENTICAL, 3UT INCLUDED MANY OF THE SAME FOINTS
AND IDEAS THAT HE PRESENTED TO THE JURY.
Q. JUDGE JOPLING, 91D YOU EVER CONDUCT A FORMAL
COMPETANCY HEARING REGARDING MR. BUNDYS ABILITY TO ASSIST
HIS COUNSEL OR TO ASSIST HIMSELF IN HIS TRIAL?
AY NO, I DIDN'T.
Q. COULD YOU EXPLAIN FOR THE COURT WHY YOU DID NOT?
A. THREE MAIN REASONS. FIRST 7HERE HAD BEEN A COMPETENCY
HEARING CONOUCTED BEFORE JUDGE COWART, EMINENT JURIST IN THE
CHI OMEGA CASE IN DETERMINING GF "HAT CASE ONLY SIX MONTHS
BEFORE THE CASE I WAS PRESIOING OVER, AND HE HAD-BEEN FOUND
oO
OQ
3s
a
mm
4
mM
Zz
4
IN THAT.
SECONDLY, THAT THE [3SUE OF COMPETENCY WAS NEVER
RAISED BEFORE ME GY HIM OR BY HIS COUNSEL.
a
oso cok Rd
TT
wo
aw
AND THIRD AND OPOBABLY MOST IMPORTANTLY WAS
BECAUSE I WAS CONVINCED
E WORD GO THAT HE WAS
EMINENTLY COMPETENT AND CAPASLE OF RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING
AND CONFERRING WITH HIS LAWYER, ANEW FULLY WELL THE
CONSEQUENCES CF THE PROCEEDINGS.
©. TF YOU HAO SEEN ANY INDICATICN OF INAPOROPRIATE
BEHAVIOR, YOU WOULD YOU HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE ON YOUR OWN
MOTICN?
A. MOST CERTAINLY I WCULD HAVE.
Q. IF MR. DEKLE HAD RAISED A MOTION, WOULD YOU HAVE
A. CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE.
ERALL CONCERNING ALL PHASES OF THIS TRIAL,
PROCEEDINGS, ANDO ANY OTHER POST TRIAL MAT
ERS, DO YOU HAVE
AN OPINION 43 7S THEODORE ROBERT SUNDY'S COMPETENCY TO STAND
TRIAL? : ;
MR. COLEMAN: OBJECTION.
-- THE COURT: OVERRULED. ae So
- = THE WITNESS: 7-00 HAVE-SUCH AN OPINION.
BY MR. DORAN: -
Q. WOULD YOU STATE FOR THE COURT THAT OPINION?
A. r WOULD SAY CONSIDERING MR. BUNDY WAS ONE OF THE MOST
INTELLIGENT, ARTICULATE, 70)
Q. DO YOU FEEL THAT MR. SUNDY HAD AN ADPRECLATION OF THE
tS
vOPLING ~ SIREOT ~ DORAN
R
83
CHARGES HE WAS FACING AND PEN FACING?
A. MOST DEFINITELY.
0. COULD YOU GIVE A FACTUAL EXAMPLE FOR YOUR REASON?
A. WELL. i DIDN'T SEE THE VIDEO THAT WAS SHOWN. I
UNDERSTAND IT WAS SHOWN YESTERDAY, SUT HIS STATEMENTS IN THE
PENALTY CHASE “O THE JURY SURELY, THE WAY HE CITED THE
CRUCIFIX OF CHRIST, AND OTHER THINGS CERTAINLY APPLY IN THE
DEATH PENALTY TO HIMSEL®, ANO REALIZING THAT HE WAS FACING
THAT, CERTAINLY INDICATED TO ME THAT HE UNDERSTOOD ALL
ALONG.
“SEE ANY EVIDENCE MR. BUNDY'S
UNDERSTOOD THE ADVISARIAL NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ASAINST
HIM?
A. MOST ASSURESLY 4E AND MR. OEKLE TANGLED SEVERAL TIMES
IN THERE &RGUMENTS ON VARIOUS MATTERS. BESIDES HAD
INCIDENTS WHERE
fy
SO APOROPRIATELY AND INTELLIGENTLY ARG
THE WILLIAMS RULE APPLICATION.
ANOTHER SATHER SOPHISTICATED POINT THAT HE ARSGUED
UNSUCCESSFULLY WAS ON T
INTRODUCTION
iNTOQ EVIDENCE OF FLIGHT AS AOMISSABLE ON, AS TOWARD GUILT.
AND HE ARGUED THAT VERY WELL,.CITING CASES, AND H
IN HI3 OROGS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. AND HE ALSO OFFERED
AT ONE TIME TO MAKE A PROFFER INDICATING HE
wAS IN CRIMINAL
CASES.
a
oO. IN YOUR VIEW HOw DID THE
AFRICAND AND MR, THOMSON, HIS ATTORNEYS?
A. TIN MY JUDGMENT OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS THAT IT WAS
COOPERATIVE ANO WAS MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL. HE CONFERED
FREQUENTLY AT THE TABLE WITR THEM. ONE TIME SENT A NOTE TO
ONE OF THEM WhO WAS OQUESTICNING A WITNESS, ANOS MR. AFRICANO
HIMSELF TOLD ME THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS A GOOD
RELATIONSHIP, AND WAS SCOPERATIVE, AND HE THOUGHT MUCH MORE
COOPERATIVE THEN LT WAS MR. BUNDYS-~ WITH HIS PREVIOUS -
ATTORNEYS IN THE & TRIAL.
0. MR. BUNDY EVER SPEAK DIRECTLY TO YOU REGARDING HIS
FEELINGS AS MR. AFRICANO'S REPRESENTATION?
A. YES, HE DID. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE GUILT PHASE OF
THE TRIAL IT BROUGHT 4IM AND COUNSEL INTO THE CHAMBERS WiTH
ME, AND I INOQUIRED SPECIFICALLY OF HIM IF HE HAD ANY
COMPLAINT ABCUT THE MANNER IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN REORESENTED
UP TO THAT POINT IN THE TRISL. FE STARTED OUT BY SAYING HE
WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH EVERY™HI
HAD SEEN DONE OUT OF
HIS PRESENCE, SUT THAT HE DID FEE: THAT HE HAD BEEN VERY
ADEQUATELY AND FAIRLY REPRESENTED AND COMPETENTLY
REPRESENTED.
QO. IN YOUR VIEW WHAT WAS THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENSE
PRESENTED “OG THE JURY?
ME TT wAS DIRECTED “OD JISCREDITING
THE MAIN STATES WITNESS, C.L. ANDERSON, I BELIEVE KIS NAME
| OPLING ~ SIRE ORAN 355
C 3 WAS, WHO WAS THE NEAR
THING TO AN EYE WITNESS THAT TEE
| 2 | STATE HAD, WHO SURPORTEDLY SAW A MAN RESEMBLING MR. SUNOY IN
A WHITE VAN PICK UP OF LITTLE GIRL AT THE JUNIGR HIGH SCHOOL
oo
4 IN LAKE CITY AND ORIVE OFF WITH HER, ATTACKING HIS
5 CREDABILITY.
CAING THE RELIABILITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE
oO
7 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT WAS INTRODUCED
3 ANO THIROLY. EXPLOITING THE MEDIA SUBLICITY THAT
8 HAD BEEN GIVEN TO CH] OMEGA TRIAL AND THIS TRIAL, THAT
79 SEEMED TO BE THEIR THEORY.
Ti FO. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A CO?
COURT YUDGE HANDLING
1 CRIMINAL CASES, HAVE YOU AAD OTHER OCCASIONS WITH THESE
18 TYPES OF THEORIES OF DEFENSE HAVE BE
ry
N PRESENTED?
L ‘a doa. NO. f SAN'T GAY THAT 7 iO 7D THE EXTENT iN THIS
15 | CASE :
[ ‘6 | o AND WHAT 18 IT ABOUT THIS CASE THAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT
e | a WELL. OF COURSE, ALL I TING AT, THERE WAS A
iE 49 | TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PUBLICITY REGARDING MR. BUNDY IN TES
E 20 | STATE OF FLORIDA. AND THAT MADE IT ANO THEN
|
ot FACT THERE WAS A PRIOR TRIAL JUST SEFORE THIS ONE, IN WHIte
ss
22 HE WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER, THESE FACTORS MADE IT
E 23 DIFFERENT -
24 2. DIO MR.
ARGUMENT TO YOU
25 REGARDING PUBLICITY IN THE NEED TO, FOR EXAMPLE, CHANGE
vOPLING - OTRECT - SCRAN
C “| VENUE?
| s loa OH YES GED VENUE TWICE. WELL, WE LET 4IM
3 | VENUE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN LIVE OAKS RATHER THEN
4 | coLumera, 4 WAS CHARGED WITH THAT CRIME, WAS
i 5 | COMMITTED IN BOTH COUNTIES, AND HE HAD THAT ELECTION. HE
FE 3s | MADE THAT TON INITIALLY.
| ? WE TRIED TO START THE TRIAL IN SWANEE COUNTY AND
_MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE we 319
9
10 1 9. I WANT TQ CHANGE PACES A LITTLE SIT, YOUR HONOR.
[- v1 pio you 2, OBSERVING MR. BUNDY, NOTICE ANY” ~
. 12 | ORASTIC UNUSUAL MOOD SWINGS ON HIS BEHALF?
F. 13 | AL AT ALL ONE INSTANCE
L. "A HE WAS YERY USSET A AND WAY iT
FER THAN THAT I DIDN'T. 2 SAW HIM
[. a) WHEN HE .COKED
47 MIRROR 1] SAW THE
THING AND IN ALL THE LAWYERS.
78 Oo. DID HE EVER ASPEAR HYPERACTIVE, UNABLE TO REMAIN AT
Pra
ONE PLACE PLACE AT
E ro | a. ‘N NEVER ANY THE FIVE WEEKS OR THE OTHER OCCASIONS
21 | 1 SAW HIM HE APPEARED Tc NERVOUS OR |
E 22 | THAT INSTANCE.
ts 23 | 0. QTD MR. BUNDY'S SPEECH EVER APPEAR TO BE EXTREMELY
RAPID?
| : 25 | a. NOT “HAT I RECOLLECT.
i
I
I
to
wt
2s
o1
oO. MR. SUNDY EVER MAKE UP WORDS?
A. IT DON'T REMEMBER ANY INSTANCE OF THAT.
Q. DID HE EVER GO INTO LENGTHY RHYMING OF WORDS OR
SENTENCES?
A. NOT THAT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION,
RECOLLECTION OF THAT EITHER.
Q. DID HE EVER APPEAR UNUSUALLY ELATED OR GRANDIOS IN HIS
APPEARANCES BEFORE YOU?
A. NO. I NEVER WITNESSED ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT.
QO. WOULD YOU CHARACTERISE MR. BUNDY'S SELF ASSURANCE?
A. T WOULD CONSIDER HIM TO BE, 79
ASSURED PERSON. i THINK IT WAS BASED
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, WHICH HE SEMONSTRATED
TIME, AND 2
QO. MR. BUNDY'S DID NOT TAKE THE $
THE TRIAL, DID HET
A. NO. HE DID NOT,
O. HE DID HOWEVER ADPEAR BEFORE
AND MADE ARGUME
A. YES.
TESTIFY DURING
VURY AS AN ATTORNEY
“WR. SUNDY WAS MOTIVATED TQ HELP HIMSEL=
A. WELL, BY THE PARTICIPATION HE MADE
THE ARGUMENTS,
oD
6
AND THEORIES AND ISEAS 7
ARGUMENTS. #E WAS WELL AQUAINTED WITH THE LEGAL PROCEDURE.
I REMEMBER ONE INSTANCE WHEN THE CASE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
LOSED, AND HE MADE THE ARGUMENT FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF
QO
ACQUITTAL, ANG HE DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF THAT, RAMBLED A
BIT, BUT I HEARD LAWYERS RAMBLE A LOT MORE AND HE DID A GOOD
JOB.
ANO ANOTHER, ALSO 1 REMEMBER WHEN WE OECIDED TO
HAVE THE JURY DELIGERATE IN THE COURTROOM, AND BECAUSE OF
THE NUMBER OF EXHIBITS. BECAUSE SOME OF THE WOMAN WERE
ALLERGIC TC SMOKE, SO WE DECIDED TO SEAL OFF TRE COURTROOM
AND LET THE JURY
IN THE COURTROOM ITSELF. AND
AFTER THAT WAS ANNOUNCED I ASKED WAS THERE ANY OBJECTION TS
TION, 207
IT. AE SAID 42 485 MO CE
= MADE T THOUGHT 4
LOGICAL SUGGESTION THAT i HAD NOT THOUG TO 6£ SURE THE
PHONE [S DISCONNECTED. WE HAVE & BAILIFF FOR EVERY DOOR. AND
SO HE WAS CONSTANTLY AWARE OF AND THINKING OF HIS WELEFARE
AND PROTECTING IT HIMSELF.
oO. TOWARD THE END OF DIC THE DEFENSE RAISE A
MOTION FOR MISTRIAL?
MAY HAVE, BUT I DON'T REMEMSER THAT OR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF IT. I GON'T REMEMBER.
QO. JUDGE JOPLING, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE HAVE YOU HAD
QCCASIONS WHERE CRIMINAL OEFENOANTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT 2
YOU AND SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S USED AGAINST THEM IS
~OPLING ~ DIRECT ~ DORAN
2 MIRANDA WARNINGS?
| $ A. YES, MANY TIMES.
i
a} 0. 1S THAT AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE, DEFENDANT WOULD
r 5 | CONFESS AFTER MIRANDA WARNINGS?
Hrs
, s [a4 No -
[- 7 | 9. HAVE YOU HAD INSTANCES WHERE AN ATTORNEY HAS ADVISED
a 8 | KIS CLIENT NOT Fe “2. THE POLICE, 3UT THEY HAVE GONE :
. 8 | AHEAD AND DONE $07
le 10 | AL T PROBABLY HAVE, UT 1 COULDN'T GIVE YOU ANY SPECIFIC
V4 INSTANCE OF THAT.
72 °. IN YOUR VIEW WOULD THAT BE ALL THAT UNUSUAL?
i 13 A NO.
14 3. THE TESTIN ABOUT THE WEDDING CEREMONY.
15 Bid YOU TAKE OF SE AT THAT AND DID IT PROVOKE
16 YOU IN GIVING THE DEFENDANT THE DEATH SENTENCE?
17 A. NONE WHATSOEVER. 2 WAS SUPRIS
, BUT I WAS NOT
48 OFFENDEO BY IT.
19 Q. MR. GUNDY APPEAR TO 8E ABLE “9 COPE WITH THE STRESS OF
20 INCARCERATION IN AN ADEQUATE FASHION?
21 A. 30 FAR AS [ COULD TELL H
a
WAS.
22 QO. WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL AS0UT_THE SET UP FOR THE.
23 DEFENSE TEAM OVER AT THE COURTHOUSE?
24 A. NOT THAT 2 AM AWARE OF,
WERE THEY GIVEN A ROOM?
ta
or
oO
C 1 A. YES, THEY WERE GIVEN EQUAL FACILITIES WITH THE STATE
mo
i
Zz
m9
<
iy
wD
4
A
m
Zz
a
mn
iN SO FAR AS I KNOW.
@
Q
DO YOU KNGW WAS MR. BUNDY’ ALLOWED OUT OF THE JAIL TO
a GO OVER AND MEET WITH THEM?
e.
4 5 A. ABSOLUTELY, AS A MATTER OF FACT I REMEMBER JUST
5 BEFORE THE FINAL ARGUMENT ON, IN THE PENALTY 2HASE OF iT, RE
7 HAD A LAWYER, ANOTHER LAWYER CAME IN AND JOINED HIS DEFENSE
3 TEAM THERE. MR. “ORIN I BELIEVE FROM TALLAHASSEE, ANO THE
3 $ | RECORD WILL REVEAL THAT WE ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH JUST BEECRE
[ 10 | THEY WOULD MAKE TFEIR FINAL ARGUMENT, AND MR. BUNDY ASKED
fi 11) THAT HE REMAIN THERE SO THAT HE AND MR. KORIN COULD OWRK OUT
7 120 | TOGETHER THEIR REMARKS IN THE FINAL PHASE Of THE PENALTY
ag 13) | PHASE.
[ ta] o. TOWARD THE THE
16 | DEFENSE PRESENTED You wi DOCTOR
bs °6 | TINAY REGARDING SENTENCING HEARING IN FRONT OF JUD@E COWARD?
E 7 A. ves.
1B} 0. PRIOR TO THAT TIME YOU TESTIFIED YOU WERE FAMILIAR
E 19 THAT THAT HEARING HAD BEEN UNDERTAKE
SE YAD BEEN A COMPETENCY BEARING?
YES, 1 WAS.
f 22 Q. “AVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THE RE°9ORTS OR INFORMATION?
E 23 a. THAD NOT SEEN ANY OF DOCTOR TINAY'S REPORTS UNTIL THE
( ta AFRICANC WAS HANDING ME A
I
L
oy
QS
Oe
|
os) mo te
Oo 2
i
Gi
roy
3
w
oO
=
x
p
4
3
o
z
R
Me
B
[CANO ASK AT THAT T]MED
A. HE ASKED FOR A CONTINUATION OF THE SENTENCING HEARING,
SO THAT THEY MIGr? PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REGARD 7G MR.
BUNDYS COMPETENCE.
0. SND WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE TO THEIR REQUEST?
A. T DENIED THAT MOTION AT THAT.
TIME, CONSIDERED 17 NOT
TO BE TIMELY. THEY HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO PRESENT THAT ISSUE,
AND THAT I OION'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO
CONSIDER. -
oO. JUDGE JOPLING, HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE THEODORE ROBERT
SUNDY"S INCOMPETENCY 70 STAND TRIAL TC ALL TRE OTHEE
DEFENDANTS WHO APPEARED SE 5ORE YOU CVER YCUR MANY YEARS ON
TRE BENCH, COMPARE HIM?
N A YOUNG MAN THAT wAS MORE
TE THEN KE WAS.
MORE QUESTIONS AND TENDER THE
CROSS EXAMINATION.
CQ. BOCD MORNING, YOUR HONOR? -
A. GOOD MORNING MR. COLEMAN,
9. SET ME ASK YOU FIRST, YOU SAID THAT MR. AFRICANO AT
SOME POINT HAD TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS RELATIONSHIP WITH MR.
BUNDY.
WHEN DID TRAT OCCUR?
Les)
cc]
aa:
JOPLING ~ DROSS ~ COLEMAN
A. MY BEST
CCURRES AFTE
WAS OVER, WHEN #E WAS GOING DOWN TO THE PRISON "O TALK WITH
MR. BUNDY.
9. NOW THE STATE PROVIDED US A LIST OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
AT WHICH MR. SUNDY APPEARED. :
OlD YOU BAYE ANY CONTACT WITH MR. SUNDY OTHER THAN
IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS?
A. WELL, DURING THE DATES DOWN HERE FOR IF TRIAL, OF
COURSE : WAS SEEING eae IN CHAMBERS DAILY ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONS, USUALLY, SUT I DON'T RECOLLECT. O7HER THAN THEY
MUST HAVE BEEN A FEW IN 1978, AFTER HIS, GF COURSE HE WAS
ARRAIGNED, I SAW HIM MEN AND I THINK THERE wAS SOME OTHES
HEARINGS IN THE LATTER PART OF 1978 THAT ARE NO™ SHOWN ON
HERE.
oO. BUT YOU ALWAYS SAW HIM IN PROCEEDINGS OR IN
CONFERENCES AND IN CHAMBERS, AND THOSE TYPES OF FORMAL
OCCASIONS, 18 THAT CORRECT?
A. YES, I HAVE SEEN HIM IN REL&XED FORM, I MEAN IN
-CHAMBERS WHEN THERE. WOULD BE A RECESS OR SOMETHING OF THE
KIND, AND WHEN HE WOULD SE TALKING INFORMALLY, AND CHATTING.
T RECALL AT TIMES i
BEING TRANSPORTED BACK AND
FORTH, TO AND FROM HIS PLACE OF CONFINEMENT. UT MOSTLY IT
WAS IN THE CITUS OF THE “RIAL ITSELF, OR CHAMBERS.
C. > NOW YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO OBSERVE
MR. BUNDY AT TIMES CONFERRING WITH HIS LAWYERS; IS THAT
ie
“wi
cy
wOPLING ~ CROSS - COLEMAN
463
D i TAKE IT THOUGH THAT OURING THOSE TIMES You
NOW WHAT THEY WERE CONFERRING ASOUT, DID YOU?
COURSE NOT, ACCEPT I MIGHT ASSUME IF IT WAS A
AR POINT IN ISSUE, RIGHT AT THAT MOMENT TREY WERE
BOUT THAT BUT I DONT] 'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SAYING.
COMAVE NG PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE?
WoYOU ENOICATED THAT IF YOU HAD SEEN TOLD OR IF YOU
CVERED THAT MR. BUNDY WAS USING ALCHOLOL, YOU WOULD
ESTIGATED: IS THAT CORRECT?
CORRECT
A YE
Q. AN
OIDN'T K
A. OF
PARTICUL
TAKING A
QO. vo
A. NO.
Q. NO
HAD DISCO
HAVE INV
A.
AFFECTIN
ANY WAY
IT WOULD
PREPARAT
HAVE SEE
BE PROVI
Q. 30
ALCOHOL
WITH HIS
ELL ME WHY YOU WOULD KRAVE INVESTIGATED THAT?
WAS IN ANY WAY
Qo HIM IN HIS APPEARANCE IN COURT, OR IF IT WAS IN
SUGGESTED IT WAS BEING USED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT
INTERFERE WITH HIS PREPARATION OR HIS LAWYERS
TON OF THE TRIAL, I CERTA&INLY WOULD HAVE. I WOULD
N THAT THE SECURITY WAS TIGNTENED AND HE WCULD NOT
DED THAT OPPORTUNITY.
I TAKE IT THEN THAT YOU'RE VIEW IS THAT use OF
COULD INTERFERE WITH THE DEFENDANTS ABILITY TO WORK
LAWYERS?
BELIEVE YSE OF ALCHOLOL CAN INTERSERE WITH ANYBOOYS
3
Re
%
rm
ra
ea rs
bac]
Q. ANDO 1 TAKE IT YOUR OPINION WOULD BE THE SAME
A QUESTION OF WHETKER MR. SUNDY WAS USING DRUGS?
A. IT is.
QO. YOU INDICATED THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU
THE A PLEA, WHERE 4 DEFENDANT IS OFTEN OFFERING TO
GUILTY TO CHARGES TS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS USED
WITEIN THE LAST TWENTY FOUR HOURS; IS THAT CORKEST?
A. CRUE.
Q. WEY YOU ASK THAT?
A BECAUSE 1 WANT TD BE SURE THAT THAT PERSON [35
POSSESSION CF HIS FACULTIES AND UNDERSTANDS wHAT 15
VSING ORUGS, WHAT WOULD 3& YOUR
a MIGHT CITE HIM FOR CONTEMPT, BUT PROBABLY
c HEARING UNTIL HE WAS, UNTIL HE WAS
DRUGS
i?) 30 THAT (7 n€ HAD BEEN AFFECTED BY DRUGS. THE)
SATISFIED “HAT HE WAS NO LONGER BEING EFFECTED?
NT av THE TIME THAT MR,
SUPPOSE TO ENTER "HE SLEA IN THE TWO TASES; IS
PROPER PERFORMANCE OF THEIR FUNCTION, OVER USE OF IT.
7 HEARING AND UNOERSTANDIN
PROCEEDING UNTIL THE TIME WHEN YOU
vOPLING - CROSS ~ COLEMAN
| 465
C 7 Tob YES, SIR. 1 WAS.
Ir
f 2709, AND YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT WHAT YOU OBSERVED AT THAT
; 3 | HEARING.
' ala. Yes,
6 1 Q. AND YOU [ BELIEVE VOU TESTIFIED THAT MR. SUNOY GOT UP,
$ AND STARTED TO ATTACK MR. MINERVA. THAT WAS UNEXPECTED?
7 A. ON MY PART IT WAS. I THINK EVERYBODY-~ 7 CAN'T SPEAK
8 FOR EVERYSODY.
9 Q. WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THAT?
L 10 A. WELL, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY SOME SUPRISE ON MY PART,
& 14 AND SCME DISSAPOINTM THAT THE WHOLE MATTER WAS BEING
is -
12 ABORTED. SEEMED TO ME THaT rr WAS WORKING TOWARD &
13 REASONABLE SOLUTION OF ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS AND CHARGES.
AND 7 CAN'T HELP TO SAY = was
OMEWHAT DISSAPOINTED.
45 Q. DID YOU CONSIDER THE PCSSIBILITY THAT PERHAPS YoU
ae
5
16 OUGHT TO LOOK INTO WHAT WAS GOING ON TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE THING COULD BE SALVAGED?
a
oo
Boa
NG. WHEN THE STATE ATTORNEY WITHDREW THE OFFER,
79 THERE'S NOTHING I COULD 00 agouT TT AT THAT TIME.
NOW YOU HAVE INDICAT THAT THERE ®RE THREE REASONS
tO
Oo
oO
24 THAT YOU OLDN'T RAISE THE I3suE OF SCMPETENCY AT YOUR _
legs
a 22 | TRIAL.
23 fa. yes.
¢ ta 5. “OU Sarg a
as COMPETENCY HEARING IN CHI OMEGA CASE: 18 THAT CORRECT?
I
re
Qo
wo
~ CROSS ~ COLEMAN
AY THAT'S THAT WAS ONE
Q. COULD YOU TELL ME WHY THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT?
AY WELL, NUMBER ONE, AS I ALLUDED TO, 1 Hap A VERY
RESPECT FOR JUDGE COWART, PRESIDING JUDGE WHO MADE THAT
RULING. AND I FE
THOT THE RULING, HIS RULING WAS EN
TO RESPECT FROM mE.
°. $O [3 IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU FELT SOMEWHAT BOUND 3Y
JUDGE COWARTS RULING?
A. NO, fT SION'T
EL BOUND BY IT, SUT I FELT IT was
REASONABLE AND THAT I WOULD ACCEPT IT.
QO. WERE YOU AWARE CF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT HAO PRECEDED
THE JUDGE COWARTS DETERMINATION THAT MR. BUNDY WAS
COMPETENT?
A. i DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TIME I WAS, I SAW THAT
PROCEEDING, I MEAN HEARD 4LL OF THE READ THE VARIOUS
REPORTS. IT WAS SOME TIME LATER THAT I LEARNED ABOUT WHAT
WENT ON THERE.
Q. NOW TELL ME WHAT YOU 4 RNED ABOUT WHAT WENT ON THER
A. WELL, I LEARNED MR. RIAN HAYES WAS APPOINTED TO
REPRESENT MR. BUNOY IN
WILLING TO, MR. BUNDY CONTENDING HE WAS ENTIRELY COMPETENT
ANDO MR. HAYES WAS PRESENTING THAT CONTENTION ON HI3 BEHALE
AND THAT HE DID MAKE SUCK A CONTENTION, THAT THEY HAD THE
TESTIMONY OR REPORTS OF DCCTOR CLECKLEY, WHO DECLARED HIM
BE COMPETENT, AND OF DOCTOR TINAY WHC CONCEDED DOCTOR
E?
MR. BUNDY NOT SEING
TS)
a
wr
a
OCLEMAN
16
CLECKLEYS EMINENCE E FIELD OF PSYCHIATRY OF THIS TYPE,
AND OF DCCTOR TINAY'’S TESTIMONY, ALL OF WHICH WAS CONSIDERED
JUDGE COWARD.
Q. NOW YOU SALD THAT YOU SECAME AWARE OF THIS AT SOME
POINT FOLLOWING THE PROCEEDINGS, WAS WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWING THE PROCEEDINGS IN CHI OMEGA, SUT BEFORE THE TRIA
IN LAKE CITY?
RECITED ABCUT THAT COMPETANCY HEARING.
Q. ME FROM WHOM YOU LEARNED THAT THE DETAILS
OF COMPETENCY HEARING?
A PAQOABLY FROM THE STATE, STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Q. CAN YOU TELL TANCES UNDER WHICH YOU
HEARING FROM THE
A. LOAM TRYING TO
MAY HAVE BEEN AFTER THE
VERDICT, AFTER THE GUILTY VERDICT, AND MAY HAVE BEEN AFTER
THAT.
Oo. IN CHI -
A. NO. AFTER "HE GUILTY VERDICT IN TRE LEACH CASE.
Qo. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT I7 WAS BEFORE THE GUILTY VERDICT? |
AL COULD HAVE SEEN RESTORE THAT.
° DO YOU RECALL THE STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE WOULD
HAVE INFORMED YOU?
ta SS rs ory
aa
rey
JOPLING ~ CROSS ~ AN
A. TAM ASSUMING THAT, I HAVE NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION
OF THIS, MR. BLAIR OR MR. DEKLE.
QO. AND CAN YOU, DO YOU RECALL WHETHE
TRIS WAS A MEETING
OF ALL COUNSEL OR WAS THIS JUST 4 MEETING SETWEEN You
THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM TKE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE?
AL { DON'T RECOLLECT ANY OF THE DETAILS OF "HAT
FURNISHED. I REMEMBER THAT i REMEMBER SEEING THE REPORTS
THAT SOME TIME DURING
G. MY QUESTION 15, we
R WR, AFRICANO OR ANY OF
VATTER PART OF THIS TRIAL.
LAWYERS REPRESENTING MR. BUNDY WERE AWARE THAT YOU HAD BEEN
PRESENTED WITH. THIS MA
TO
oO. TE UNDERSTAND TRA™. I AM TALMING ABOUT TEE
THAT YOU LEARNED 480UT "SE
TENCY HEARING IN CHI
5O YOU KNOW?
a TAM NOT CERTAIN. I CSOULON'T STAND HERE AND SAY I
2. 80 I[7'S POSSIBLE THAT va, ICANQ WAS NOT EVEN AWARS
OF THAT?
aA. THAT'S 7
oO. NOW DID YOU READ DOCTOR TINAY’S REPORT WHEN THE STATE
PRESENTED IT TS your
& YES, Iobte
o. ANO THAT REPORT RAISED QUESTIONS ARCUT WHETHER MR.
wOPLING - CROSS - COLEMAN
C * | BUNDY WAS COMPE
| 2 A. WELL, THE
| 3 Go. SUGGESTED THAT HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TG STAND TRIAL; 25
4 THAT CORRECT?
E 5 | A. YES, I WOULD SAY SAY SO.
if
4 3 | Q. SUGGESTED “HAT HE WOULD ACT IN A WAY TO JEOPARDIZE 41S
7 | OWN CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?
E a | a. I DON'T RECOLLECT "HAT SPECIFICALLY.
E a |o. LET ME ASK YOU, YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YoU ALSo
10 | LEARNEO THAT MR. HAYES HAD SEEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MR.
E 11 | BUNDY AT THE COMPETENCY HEARING.
wa da. yes.
13 | 0. ANO DID YOU ALSO LEARN THAT MR. SUNOY HAD REFUSED TO
14 HAVE THE ISSUE OF }
COMPETENCY ADVANCED BY KIS LAWYERS?
"6 MR. QORAN: ~ OBJECT, i THINK WE ARE GETTING BEYOND
17 | THE SCOPE OF DIRECT EXAMINATION.
18
42 KNEW THAT.
20
a4 ° AND DID YOU RNGW THAT MR. MINERVA AND THE OTHER
23 COMPETENCY HEARING SEFORE JUDGE COWARD?
24 a. TOSTONTT ANGw 4
ce
nt
GO. YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE?
KNOW THAT BOTH OARTIES IN THE COMPETENCY
a
D TO JUDGE COWARD THAT MR. BUNDY OUGHT
4 FOUND COMPETENT; WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
=
if
5 A. YES. . WAS AT SOME TIME, MAY HAVE BEEN AFTER THIS
7 5 TRIAL WAS COVER, THESE TRIALS i WAS FURNISHED 7
7 TRANSCRIPT OF THE THAT PROCEEDING AND TREY HAVE BEEN-- MAY
g G. COMPETENCY HE4RING WHERE T 7
10 MAVE BE CHALLENGE,
V4 ASOUT WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS COMPETENT ND NO PARTY APPEARS
HEARING TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTIONS?
o
>
NO. T HAVENT
24
25
JOPLLUG-CRO COLEMAN
471
Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF A COMPETENCY HEARING WHERE ATTORNEYS
WHO HAVE REPRESENTED A CLIENT AND WHO WERE IN A POSITION ?
KNOW ABOUT HIS COMPETENCY WERE EXCLUDED?
MR. DORAN: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT
AGAIN. I THINK NOW WE'RE REALLY GETTING {NTO THE CHI OMEGA
CASE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MR. COLEMAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, JUDGE JOPLING SAID
THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHi OMEGA CASE |
AND SAID THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THREE REASONS. THAT Ha
DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO INQUIRE INTO MR.
BUNDY'S COMPETENCY.
THE COURT: WELL, THERE IS NO WAY HE COULD
POSSIBLY BE AWARE OF ANY OF THE SPECIFICS AND YOU'RE JUST
TRYING TO GET THEM BEFORS THE COURT BY ANSWERING THEM ~
YOURSSLF.- THERE IS 0 WAY HE CAN ANSWER TNE QUESTION.
SUSTAINED.
“AR. COLEMAN: WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE STAT
TOLD HIM, SO I LON'T XNOW WHETHER HE CAN ANSWER IT.
THE COURT: OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.
BY MR. COLEMAN:
Qe JUDGE JOPLING, DID YOU-RVER piscuss oR. TANAY'S REPORT
@ITH ANYBODY?
A. NOTHING EXCEPT MAYBE SOME CASUAL REPLY TO vlR. APRICANO
AT THR TIME HE HANDED IT TO ME AT THE SENTENCING HEARING.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
JOPLLNG<$CROS S-COLLAAN
_LAWYERS FOR MR. BUNDY?
472
Q. NOW, ZI TAKE IT THAT YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT MR. BUNDY
WAS USING ALCOHOL DURING THE TRIAL IN YOUR CASE?
A. I STILL DON'T KNOW THAT HE WAS.
Q- AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD PROVIDED A ROOM BEHIND
THE COURTHOUSE, I GUESS BEHIND THE CHAMBERS, FOR MR. BUNDY
AND HIS LAWYERS TO USE DURING THE TRIAL, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. YES.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THAT ROOM TO THE
A. FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE IN CONFERRING AND MEETING AND
DISCUSSING THE DEFENSE.
Q. WERE YOU AWARE THAT MR. BUNDY IN FACT WAS USING THE
ROOM TO MAKE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS AND TELEPHONE
CALLS WITH WRITERS WHO WERE PREPARING A BOOK ABOUT HIM?
MR. DORAN: OS8J38CTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND
THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECT EXAMINATION, IT'S HOT RELEVANT --
THE COURT; OVERRULED.
A. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY OF HIS
TELEPHONE CALLS TO ANY3ODY.
BY MR. COLEMAN:
Q. NOW, YOU ZNDICATED THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT MR. BUNDY
MADE TO YOU AT THE END OF THE TRIAL RIGHT BEFORE SENTENCING
WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE GAME AS THE ARGUMENT THAT HE MAD wADS
TO-THE JURY DURING THE PENALTY PHASE, IS THAT CORRECT?
A. WELL, TO SAY SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, I WAS MEANING TO
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
Fe ee SS
f
473
SAY THAT UE WAS RAISED SOME OF THE SAME POINTS. IT WAS MOT
IDENTICAL. IT WAS MORZ OF A PLEA THAN IT WAS ARGUMENT THAN
IT WAS BEFORE THE JURY.
Q. iT WAS A PLEA THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT T9
CONVICT SIM, IS THAT CORRECT?
A. IT INCLUDED THAT, YES.
Q. NOW, DO YOU RECALL, JUDGE JOPLING, THAT AT THE
SENTENCING MR. AFRICANO ARGUED TO YOU THAT THE PERSON WHO
COMMITTED THE CRIMES IN THIS CASE, THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED
THE CRIME IN THIS CASE HAD TO BE INSANE? DO YOU RECALL
THAT?
A. MR. APRICANO'S ARGUMENT OF THAT?
Q. YES.
A. NO, IL DOW'T,
Q. DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING ABOUT HR. AFRICANO SUGGESTING
THAT {F MR. BUNDY IN FACT WAS THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE
CRIME, THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT PERSONALITY?
A. I REMEMBER HR. BUNDY SAYING THAT THE PERSON WHO KILLED
KIMBERLY LEACH WAS NOT IN THE COURTROOM, BUT I DON'T
REMEMBER WHAT YOU JUST ASKED ME.
Qe AND DIDN'T YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION "ITY A WRITER --
MR. DORAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS I5 FAR
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.
THE COURT: LT'S HEAR THE QUESTION.
BY MR. COLEMAN:
JNLTED STATES COURT REPORTER
JOP UGH CROSS COLL AN
474
| 1) a -- APTER THE LAKE CITY TRIAL IN WHICH YOU SAID THAT
C 2 THIS NOTION OF ANOTHER PERSONALITY WAS INTERESTING AND CHAT
| 3.| THAT OCCURRED TO YOU WHEN YOU HEARD MR, BUNDY SAY THAT TUE
| 4 | PERSON WHO KILLED KIMBERLY LEACH WAS UOT IN THIS COURTROOM?
. 5) aA. i HAVE MADE THAT STATEMENT OF HIS ANALYSIS OF THAT,
a 6 | BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING TO ANY WRITER, BUT I? COUND
f 7) HAVE BEEN. BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS INTERESTING.
: 8] Q. BUT THAT WAS YOUR REACTION, THAT IT WAS INTERESTING
E 9 | AND THAT THAT MIGHT BEAR OUT THAT HB VAD A DIFFERENT _
E 10 | PERSONALITY?
11 A. NOT THE LATTER PART. I'VE SAID THAT WAS INTERESTING,
12 BUT I DON'T REMEMBER ANY STATEMENT THAT BORE OUT ANY DUA
13 PERSONALITY.
14 HR. COLEMAN: THAT'S ALL I MAVE.
[ 15 THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT?
E 16 MR. DORAN: JUST VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR,
. u7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
t 18 BY MR. DORAN:
E 19 Q. YOUR HONOR, LET'S PICK UP WITH THAT LAST POINT. was
| 20 THERE ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY PERSONAL OBSERVATION BY YOU rant
5 21 THEODORE BUNDY MAD A MULTIPLE PERSONALITY? :
E 22 A. - NO, THERE WAS NOT. 7 Oe 7 7
23 Q. HOW LONG DID TO AVERAGE TRIAL DAY RUN IN THE BUNDY
24 CASE? 7
[> 25 A. FOR TWO DAYS IT RAN FROM BRIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING
| NITED STATES COURT REPORTER
24
25
JOPLING-REDIRECT-DORAM
475
AT NINE O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, BUT MOST OF THE TIME IT RAN FROM
NINE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING TO FIVE OR FIVE THIRTY IN TIE
AFTERNOON, WITH AN HOUR OFF FOR LUNCH.
Q. SO BASICALLY YOU SAW MR. BUNDY ON AVERAGE ABOUT THE
SANE AMOUNT OF TIME A PERSON WOULD SHE SEE A FELLOW COWORKER
EVERY DAY?
A. YES. -
Q. MR. COLEMAN WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN
INDIVIDUAL USING DRUGS OR ALCOHOL. _ AM. i. CORRECT YOUR VIEW
Is IT'S THE EFFECT OF DRUGS AND ALCOHOL, NOT THE HERE USAGE
THAT WOULD BE INPORTANT TO YOU AS A JUDGE?
A. OF COURSE,
Q. AND WHAT KIND OF AN EFFECT WERE YOU LOOKING FOR?
A. ANY UFFECT THAT WOULD IMPAIR HIS FACULTIES TO
UNDERSTAND, TO COHERENTLY REACT TO WHAT WAS GOING ON.
Q. AND WOULD THAT EXTEND TO THE COURTROOM AND OUTSIDE THE
COURTROOM AS WELL?
A. YES.
Q. AND ASSISTING HIS ATTORNEY?
A. YES.
Q. UNDER FLORIDA LAW AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, A JUDGE CANNOT
COMPEL PARTIES TO AGREE 0 A PLEA BARGAIN, CAN IIE?
A. NO.
Q. PLEA BARGAIN IS LEFT TO THE PROSECUTION AND THE
DEFENDANT?
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
nN
24
25
JOPLIUG-REDIRECT-DORAN
476
A. YES.
Q. AND IF ONE OF THE PARTIES BACKS OUT OF THE DEAL, THE
JUDGE HAS NO CONTROL OVER IT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAD HEARD OF JUDGE COWART'S RULING AS
TO COMPETENCY, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS TSAT YOU FOUND
THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT? 7
A. WELL, BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE HAD BEEN A
COMPETENCY WEARING, LIKE_I SAY. I. KNEW JUDGE. COWART_AND
KNEW HIS ABILITY AND KNEW THAT HE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A
PROPER HEARING AND THAT HIS RULING, IN MY OPINION, WOULD BE
PERSUASIVE ON ME. NOT BINDING, BUT PERSUASIVE.
Q. 80 BASED UPON WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT JUDGE ‘COWART AS A
JURIST, IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT THAT HEARING “Ap BEN
THOROUGH AND COMPLETE AND EXPLORED ALL LEGAL POSSIBILITIES?
A. THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION.
Q. AND WAS THERE ANYTHING BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION
BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE TRIAL THAT WOULD CAUSE YoU TO
CHANGE THAT ASSUMPTION?
A. NO.
HR. DORAN: i HAVE NO FURTHER quzstrons, YOUR
JOHOR.
TIE COURT: MR. COLBHAN, a 7 ee
AR. COLEMAN: NO FURTYRR QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: THANK YOU, JUDGE. YOU MAY STEP DOWN.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
24
25
JOP bigs RECT
477
WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL ONE O'CLOCK.
(LUNCH RECESS.)
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
478
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE COURT: MR. DORAN.
HR. GORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THE STATE OF
FLORIDA WOULD CALL ATTORNEY BRIAN HAYES TO THE STAND.
WHEREUPON:
BRIAN T. HAYES,
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY
SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
- - - - DIRECT SXAMINATION — -
BY MR. DORAN:
2. UR. HAYES, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND SPELL
YOUR LAST NAME?
A. BRIAN T. HAYES. @ AY ES. AND iy PROFESSIONAL
ADDRESS IS 245 HAST HASHINGTON STREET, MONTICELLO.
2. AND WHAT ZS youR PROFESSION, iR. HAYES?
A. I'tl A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, ADMITTSD 1964.
Q. COULD YOU JUST BRILFLY DESCRIBE FoR THE COURT YOUR
POST HIGH SCHOOL 8DUCATION?
A. GOT MY NOERGRADUATE DEGRES IN 1950 FROM ONIO
UNIVERSITY, THEN If VAS LL.B., IT WAS LATSR MADE A J.D. FROM
ONTO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY IN '63. TOOK THE FLORIDA BAR IN
AUGUST OF 'G3 AND WAS ADMITTED IN NOVEMBER OF '63 AND
COMMENCED PRACTICE 1 JANUARY OF '64.
2. 80 YOU PRACTICND IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA SINCE THAT
TIME?
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
479
A. YEAH, UNINTSRRUPTEDLY, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. WHAT HAS BEEN THE NATURE OF YOUR PRACTICED DURING THAT
TIME?
Ae PRIMARILY CRIMINAL DEFENSE WORK STARTING IN SOUTH
FLORIDA IN '64. I MOVED TO NORTH FLORIDA IN THE LATER PART
OF 1968, I BELIEVE, WENT WITH THE P.O. OFFICE ON A PART-TIHE
BASIS FROM LATE '68 THROUGH 1970. WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE
TAXING CRIMINAL DEFENSE CASES, COURT APPOINTMENTS UNTIL
DECEMBER. OF 1980. WHEN I HAD MOVED MY.OFFICE TO .MONTICELLO .
WHERE I LIVE AND I THEN TOOK ON THE POSITION OF A PART-TIME
ASSISTANT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY ONLY IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE THERE.
I'M ADMITTED TO ALL THE COURTS, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT,
FIFTH CIRCUIT, U.S. SUPREME COURT.
Q. YOU SAY YOUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN MAINSY CRIMINAL
PRACTICE. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CRIMINAL FELONY TRIALS
HAVE YOU HAD OVER THE YEARS?
A. IT'S HARD TO ESTIMATE. I KNOW OUR OFFICE IN
MONTICELLO HANDLED A HUNDRED AND FIFTY LAST YEAR, AND WHEN
WE SAY MONTICELLO, THAT'S ME. IT'S HARD TO SAY. WELL IN
EXCESS OF THREE HUNDRED. I'VE TRIED FIVE JURY TRIALS SINCE
“DECEMBER 1 OF THIS YaaAR, $0 IT'S A FAIRLY HEAVY DOCKET AUD I
DO iT ALL. AND BEFORE THAT I DID IT IN TALLAHASSEE.
Q. HAVS YOU EVER TRIED A FIRST DEGREE WURDSR CRIES?
A. I HAVE TRIED, I THINK, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN NORTH
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
480
FLORIDA. I HAY BE MISTAKEN. MAYBE MIKE KORIN IS CATCHING
ME. I THINK I'VE TRIED TWO DOZEN AND THAT MAY BE
CONSERVATIVE. SEEMS LIKE I HAVE ONE OR TWO A YEAR.
Q. AND WERE ANY OF THOSE CASES CASES IN WHICH THE stave
SOUGHT THE DEATH PENALTY?
A. ABSOLUTELY. I -- WELL, YES, THE ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION IS YES. OS
Q. DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO TRY CAPITAL CASES PRIOR TO
THE DECISION IN FUPMAN VERSUS GEORGIA? - -
aA. YES. AND I HAVE STOOD NEXT TO DEFENDANTS AS THEY GoT
THE CHAIR PRIOR TO FURMAN WHOSE CONVICTIONS WERE LATER
OVERTURNED.
Q. SOON AFTER FURMAN, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO REPRESENT
A DEPENDANT CHARGED WITH HH FIRST DEGREE MURDER IN LEON
COUNTY?
A. YES, SIR. I WAS COURT APPOINTED BY JUDGE JOHN RUDD 70
REPRESENT WR, SPINKELINK, JOUN SPINKSLINK.
Q. AND HOW FAR THROUGH DID YOU CARRY YOUR REPRESENTATION
OF THE SPINKELINK CASE?
A. HY REPRESENTATION WENT THROUGH THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT AT HICH TIMm VARIOUS GROUPS CAME IN TO ASSIST US,
WHICH I THINK NOW WAS A HISTARE, BUT 1 CARRIED I THROUGH
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AND I THINK I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN
THE CLEMENCY ‘IEARING SOME YEARS LATER.
Q. IN YOUR PRACTICN OF CRIMINAL LAW, HAVE YOU HAD
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
2
OCCASION TO RAISE SITHER THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY OR THR
QUESTION OF COMPETENCY OF YOUR CLIENT TO STAND TRIAL?
A. YES, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THERE iS TWO ISSUES
THERE. THE FIRST ISSUZ IS THE ISSUE OF COMPETENCY TO STAND
TRIAL, THEN OF COURSE THERB IS THE QUESTION OF SANITY AT THE
TIME OF THE OFFENSE.
IN MY JUDGMENT -- WELL, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
IS YES, I HAVE DONE THAT BOTH WAYS, THAT IS, INSANITY AT THE
TIME OF THE DEFENSE WHERE YOU GIVE STATE NOTICE THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO RELY ON THAT DEFENSE, AND ALSO I HAVE REPRESENTED
CLIENTS NHERE WE HAVE RAISED IT IN REFERENCE TO THAT
PERSON'S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL.
Q. ARE TIESE TERMS IN YOUR UNDERSTANDING ALWAYS, DO THuy
ALWAYS RUN TOGETHER OR COULD YOU HAVE A CLIENT --
A. NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. ABSOLUTELY NOT. THE TEST
PURSUANT TO THE RULES AS PROMULGATED BY THS FLORIDA SUPREAS
COURT AND AS CODIFIED IN OUR RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCELURZ
REQUIRE THAT TO BE INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, IT'S A PRETTY
RIGID TEST. THINK IT WAS RECITSD SARLIER HERE THIS _
MORNING.
THE PERSON NEED BE UNABLE SSSENTIALLY TO
UNDERSTAND THR JUDICIAL PROCESS, TO UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE
OF TESTIMONY, TO COOPERATE WITH WIS LAWYER. ANY DEFENDANT
WHO IS THAT INCOMPRTENT AT THAT POINT, THE CHANCES ARE
YOU'VE GOT A VERY, VERY GOOD INSANITY DEFENSE.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
482
HOWEVER, I'VE NAD THEM WORK IN MY EXPERIENCE BOTH
WAYS. ‘iF AN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT IS ADJUDGED INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL, ALL THAT MEANS IS HE GOES OVER TO CHATTAHOOCHEE
FOR A YEAR USUALLY AND THEN HE'S BACK. AND IN VERY RARE
INSTANCES, OF COURSE, SOMETIMES HE STAYS THERE INDEFINITELY,
BUT THERE IS A MANDATORY REVIEW.
ON THE OTHER HAND, OF COURSE, IF A PERSON IS
COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL AND A VALID INSANITY DEFENSE IS
RAISED, THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIV. IT CAN BAPPEN
AND IT'S HAPPENED IN MY JUDGMENT WHERE A VIOLENT CRIME, FOR
INSTANCE, SOWETHING HAPPENED, QUOTE, I
INK THE DOCTORS SAY
HIS WIHD SNAPPED. THAT WOULD NOT BEAR ON TH PERSON'S
COMPETENCY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL TO ASSIST HIS COUNSEL BUT
SIGHT VERY WELL ESTABLISH AN INSANITY DEFENSE AT THE Tins or
THE ALLEGED CRIME.
o LET US ASK YOU ABOUT INTOXICATION BY USE OF ALCOHOL oR
YOUR EXPERIENCE DOES TS2 WERE INGESTION OF
ALCOHOL OR DRUGS RENDER SOMEONE INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL?
A. NO. AS WE KNOW, IN FLORIDA, THE VOLUNTARY
INTOXICATION 15 NOT ORDINARILY A DEFENSE. TABRE IS Some,
THERE ARS SOME
SPTLIONS TO THAT AS FAR AS CASES INVOLVING
PREMEDITATION, SUT @RNDRALLY vouutTaRy ‘ravoxrcarrow 1s nor A
DEFENSE TO THE CRIME, NOR DOES iT R#NDSR A PERSON, IF YOUR
QUESTION iS DOSS THAT RENDER THE INCOMPETENT, TIE PACT THAT
THSY'RS LNGESTING ALCOHOL, NOT UNLESS THEY'RE JUST FALLING
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
24
25
DOWN DRUNK AT THES TIME OF TRIAL AND DON'T
THE JUDGE IS SAYING, WHAT THEIR LAWYER iS SAYING.
Q. DURING YOUR MANY REPRESENTATIONS OF CAPITAL CLIZNTS,
DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THEODORE ROBERT
BUNDY?
A. YES.
Q. WOULD YOU LOOK AROUND THE COURTROOM AND TELL MB IF YOU
SEE MR. BUNDY IN THE COURTROOM TODAY?
A. - THAT'S MR. BUNDY SHATED OVER THERE NEXT TO MR. COLEMAN
TO THE LEFT WITH THE BLUE SHIRT.
Q. CAN YOU SXPLAIN TO THE COURT HOW iT WAS YOU CAME TO
REPRESENT MR. BUNDY?
Ae elAY I CONSULT MY NOTES AND TIME RECORDS, YOUR HONOR?
TIIS WAS A LONG TIME AGO.
THIS WAS A UNIQUE APPOINTMENT, ONE i HAD NEVER
QUITE HAD BEFORE. ACCORDING TO MY TIME RECORDS, WHICH ARS.
IN HY OWN HANDWRITING, I WAS CALLED BY JUDGE COWART ON HAy,
I'M SORRY, JUNE 4, 1979, AND HE ADVISED ME THAT HE WOULD
APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH -- AND OF COURSES WE AS LAWYERS Kiow
WHAT THAT MEANS, WHEN HE SAYS HE WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY
WOCH, THAT MEANT CHANGE YOUR CALENDAR -~ IF I WOULD
REPRESENT TED BUNDY FOR ONE HEARING, AND YE LUDiCATED AT THE
TIN THAT THE HEARING WAS GOING TO BE A COMPETTNCY HEARING
AND THAT HE, JUDGE COWART, HAD RAISED THE ISSUE, AND BECAUSE
OF THE --
ONITED STATES COURT REPORTER
24
25
484
Qe LET ME STOP YOU FOR A MINUTE. JUDGE COWART HAD RAISED
THE ISSUE?
A. THAT'S WHAT HE INDICATED TO ME, THAT THE ISSUE IS
BEING RAISED BY THE COURT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE
WAS DISINCLINED TO DO SO AND HE WAS FUSSING WITH MIKE
MINERVA, HIS LAWYER, AND APPARENTLY THERE WAS A PENDING
MOTION FOR MR. MINERVA BITHER TO GET OUT OR TO BE AUTHORIZED
TO GET OUT AND MAYBE A MOTION BY MR. BUNDY TO LET HIM
PROCEED PRO Si. eee fo
2. LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION. UNDER THE RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, DOES THE JUDGE HAVE A RIGHT TO RAISE
THIS KIND OF THING ON HIS OWN? 7
A. YES. DON'T ASK ME THE RULE NUMBER. THE DEFENDANT,
THE STATE ATTORNEY OR THE JUDGE MAY RAISE THE QUESTION OF
THE DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCY AT ANY TIME. THE STATE RARELY
RALSES IT. I NEVER HAVE SEEN THEM RAISE IT. SO IN THIS
CASE I THINK MR. ALNERVA -- WELL, THE ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION IS. YES, THEY ALL THREE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAISE IT.
Q. pO YOU KNOW IF MR, MINERVA MADE ANY INDICATION TO
JUDGE COWART THAT HE WANTED THE ISSUE EXPLORED?
A. YES. MIKE ACTUALLY FILED A SORT OF A BARE BONES
MOTION ASKING THE guage TO SCHEDULE IT FOR A HEARING AND
FURNISHED ME A COPY OF WHAT I DESCRIBED AS A BARE BONES
MOTION.
Q. YOU HAVE JUST PULLED SOMETHING FROM YOUR RECORD.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
485
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE WHAT IT Is?
Ae I HAVE A HOTION FILED THE FOURTH OF JUNE, ‘79, THE
SAME DATE I WAS APPOINTED, WHICH IS VERY BRIEF, IT'S
ENTITLED IN CAPITAL LETTERS "MOTION FOR HEARING TO DETERMINE
COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL" SIGNED BY MICHAEL J. MINERVA
CERTIFYING A COPY TO VARIOUS PARTIES.
Q. AND WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE SERVICE?
A. FOURTH OF JUNE, 1979, THE DAY OF MY APPOINTMENT.
Q. AND WOULD YOU READ THE STYLE OF THE CASE?
A. STATS OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF, VERSUS THEODORE ROBERT
BUNDY, DEFENDANT, 78-673, CIRCULT COURT OF LEON COUNTY,
FLORIDA. DO YOU WANT Mm TO READ WHAT THE BODY OF THE
MOTION?
Q. NO. THAT WILL BE PINE.
A. ALL RIGHT.
Q. AFTER YOU AGREED TO JUDGE COWART'S CALL, WIS SUMMONS
AS IT WERE, WHAT Dib YOU DO THEN?
A. ONCE AGAIN, I REFER TO My TIME RECORDS. f WAS
APPOINTED BY THIS TELEPHONE CALL ON THE FOURTH. I MADE A
CALL T0 THE CLERK SHORTLY THEREAFTER AND ASKED FOR A COPY OF
THE ORDSR. I CALLED NP AINERVA AND SET UP AN APPOINTMENT
ACCORDING TO THESE NOTES, THE NEXT DAY. SHAT WAS ON THE
POURTH.
ON THE FIFTH OF JUNE, 1979 HY TIME RECORDS REFLECT
THAT £ LEFT MY OFFICE AT TEN A.M., WENT TO MIKE MINERVA'S
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
436
OFFICE FOR THE APPOINTHENT., I TALKED WIT! NIM FOR ONE ‘OUR,
PICKED UP COPLES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENT, WENT TO LEON COUNTY
JAIL, INTERVIEWED TED BUNDY FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE POINT FIVE
HOURS. I THEN LEFT THE JAIL, CALLED THE STATE ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, TALKED TO WR. MCKREEVER AND RETURNED TO MONTICELLO.
I HAD FIVE HOURS, SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN TEN O'CLOCK UNTIL
THREE O'CLOCK. ‘THAT WAS ON THE FIFTH.
DO YOU WANT ME TO GO ON?
Q. YES, PLEASE. ae . Be
A, ON THES SIXTH OF JUNE I RECEIVED A -- I'M SORRY. HORE
WAS SOMETHING ELSE TISRE ON THE FIFTH. NO, THERE WASN'T.
i'M SORRY.
ON THE SIM@E £f RECEIVED A LONG DISTANCE coLnncr
CALL FROM WR. BUNDY AND I CHATTED WITH HiM AT MY OFFICE 15
MONTICELLO. THAT WAS AT TWO P.M.. AND HY TIE RECORDS SHOW
POINT FIVE SO WE CHATTED FOR ABOUT A HALF HOUR.
ON THE SE
TH OF JUNE, AT 7:10 Pile AT MY YOHS gf
RECEIVED A LONG -- I HADS A LONG DISTANCE COLLECT CALL TO A
STATE ATTORNEY DAN iiCKEEVER WANTING TO KNOW WHERE THE REPORT
WAS FROM DR. KLECKLEY, TALKED TO HIM FOR TEN UINUTES.
AT 7:35 i GOT A COLLECT CALL FROM MR. BUNDY AND i
REPORTED TO Hid TAS GUBSTANC! OF HY CONVERSATION Witt uk.
HACKEEVER., AND UR. UCKSEVER GAVE HS A VERBAL AT UNIAT Tiadw or
WHAT OR. KLECKLEY HAD SAID.
WN THE EIGHTH, WHICH WOULD BE THE NEXT DAY, I WENT
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
487
TO TALLAUASSEE TWELVE NOON, I RETURNED AT FIVE twENTy, THis
WAS FOR THE CONFERENCE THAT WAS ABLD BY JUDGE COWART AT LAKE
JACKSOM RELATING TO GROUND RULES FOR THE UPCOMING NEARING.
JUDGE COWART DIDN'T HAVE AN OFFICE IN TALLAHASSEE AND WAS
COMING IN FOR THE HSARING AND POSSIBLY THE TRIAL.
AND OW THE ELEVENTH, WHICH WAS MY LAST DAY OF Hy
OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION OF MR. BUNDY, I ARRIVED AT THD
COURTHOUSE AS 8:45, { CONFERRED WITH MR. BUNDY, SEARING
COMMENCED A'T-9:30 AND-HEARING CONCLUDED-AT 11:00 AcH. ~ THAT
WAS ON TSE ELEVENTH OF JUNE, "79.
Q. WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE DURING THE HEARING ON TSE
COMPETENCY ISSUE? oo
A. WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT AND HY ROLE
iM THA’ CASE I$ NO DIFFERENT THAN MY ROLE iN ANY CASE. 1
WAS TO SERVE HIS INTEREST. AND THAT MEANS, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, OF COURSE, DOING WHAT HE WANTED MZ TO DO WITHIN, oF
COURSE, THE STHICS AND WHAT I COULD 00, AND I THINK I DID
iv.
Q. LET ME STOP YOU FOR A MINUTE, WHEN YOU SAY WITHIN THR
ETHICS OF WHAT YOU COULD DO, WHAT WOULD BZ THE ETHICAL
CONSTRAINTS THAT WOULD BE ON YOU AS AN ATTORNEY?
A. WELL, AS L TELL DEFENDANTS ALL THE IME, THEY HAVE A
RIGHT TO INSIST THAT THEIR GUILT BE PROVED, THEY NAVE A
RIGHT TO BE CONVICTED ON CONSTITUTIONALLY SATHERED
BVIDENCE. THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE HE TO SUBPOENA A
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
488
BUNCH OF PHONY ALIBI WITNESSES OR TO PERFORM PERJURY, BUT
SHORT OF THAT, OF COURSE, THEY WILL, HOPEFULLY, THEY WILL
GET A GOOD DEFENSE WITH ALL WHATEVER TALENT I CAN PROVIDE.
SO THAT'S WHAT I REFERRED TO WITHIN ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS.
AND OF COURSE, THAT INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, NOT FILING
SPURIOUS MOTIONS FOR A CONTINUANCE AND SWORN MOTIONS THAT I
KNOW ARE NOT TRUE. -
Q. WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF YOUR ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE
IDEA THAT MR. BUNDY. WAS.COMPETENT.TO STAND TRIAL? - ——~—~-
A. WELL NOW, BEAR IN MIND -- MAY I BACK UP A LITTLE BIT?
9. CERTAINLY.
A. AND I GUESS COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN, THE CONFIDENTIAL
RELATIONSHIP BEEN WAIVED IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE? OR ARE THEY
NOW WAIVED?
MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING
THAT THEY HAD BEEN EARLIER.
THE COURT; MR. BUNDY WAIVED HIS ATTORNEY CLIINT
RELATIONSHIP TO EVERY ATTORNEY SUBJECT TO ANY SPECIFIC
OBJECTIONS AT THE TIME OF TESTIMONY.
A. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. DORAN:
Q. IF YOU COULD THEN JUST LIMIT YOUR DISCUSSIONS OR
REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
A. AS INDICATED, { SPENT SOME TIME WITH MR. BUNDY AT THE
LEON COUNTY JAIL ADVISING HIM OF WHO I WAS, WHAT I PERCEIVED
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
439
MY FUNCTION TO BE, HE WAS AWARE OF THE HEARING COMING UP
AND WE CONFERRED AT SOME LENGTH. HE WAS VERY, VERY
INSISTENT THAT HE DID NOT WISH THR DEFENSE RAISED, DID NOT
GO ALONG WITH MR. MINERVA RAISING IT, WAS UPSET WIT! MIKE
MINERVA AND PROCEEDED TO GIVE ME, REFERRING TO MY NOTES, THE
NAMES OF FIVE LAWYERS WHO COULD TESTIFY NOT ONLY TO HIS
LEGAL SKILL, BUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND HIS
ABILITY TO GO FORWARD.
WE DISCUSSED IN THAT MEETING THE EXISTING CASE
LAW, I HAVE IT IN MY NOTES, PERETTA VERSUS CALIFORNIA WHICH
HAD COME UP SOMETIME EARLIER AND COPETTO (PH) VERSUS STATE.
COPETTO VERSUS STATE WAS THE OLDER SUPREME COURT RULING
WHICH I INCIDENTALLY ARGUED BEFORE THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
HOLDING THAT YOU COULD 3E REQUIRED TO HAVS A LAWYER SITTING
THERE WITH YOU. FERETTA AS WE DISCUSSED SSBMED TO SAY THAT
THE RIGHT WAS ABSOLUTE TO PROCEED AS YOUR OWN LAWYER. WZ
DISCUSSED THAT. AND HE WAS AWARE OF My RELATIONSHIP WITH
MR. SPINKELINK, I THINK HE REFERRED TO THAT. AND WE
TALKED.
AND BASED ON THAT, MY DISCUSSION witH HIM, £
CRANKED UP FOR THE HEARING ACCORDINGLY. AND AS THE RECORD
‘hi GURE REFLECTS, HE WAS AWARE OF WHAT DR. TANAY SAID. IN
FACT, WHEN HE CALLED Me AT OME HB “IMITATED “THE VOICE oF DR.
TANAY LN SORT OF AN EASTERN. suROPZAN TYPE VOICE. VERY Goob
IMITATION BY TUG WAY. BUT NE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH REGARD FOR
_ ONITSD STATES COURT REPORTER -
490
DR. TANAY OR FOR DR. KLECKLEY. DIDN'T HAVES VERY MUCH REGAR:
FOR MIKE MINERVA. HE FELT THE P.D. OFFICE WASN'T DOING
THEIR JOB. HE WANTED, HE HAD WANTED MILLARD FARMER FROM
ATLANTA TO REPRESENT HIM.
Q. LET ME ASK YOU, IN TERMS OF YOU SAY YOU CRANKED UP FOR
YOUR MOTION, WHEN YOU CRANKED UP FOR YOUR MOTION, DID YOU
REFER TO THE CRITERIA THAT ARE SET OUT IN THE RULES TO
DISCUSS COMPETENCY?
A. ABSOLUTELY. BUT BEAR IN MIND I WAS REPRESENTING NIM _
AND HG DID NOT WANT TO ASSERT THAT AS A DEFENSE, AT ALL,
BITNER INSANITY AT THE TIME OR INSANITY OR INCOMPETENCE TO
PROCEED TO STAND TRIAL. ~ oo
Q. LET'S LIMIT OURSELVES TO THE COMPETENCY ISSUE. FROM
YOUR OWN OBSERVATIONS, YOU SAY YOU MET WITH HR. SUNDY FOR
ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF AT THE JAIL?
A. THAT FIRST DAY, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q COULi YOU GIVE US YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF HR.
BUNDY WHEN YOU FIRST MET HIM?
A. WHEN I HET MR. BUNDY AT TUE JAIL IT WAS APPROXINATELY
ONE P.M. ACCORDING 70 uy NOTES. HE WAS WELL DRESSED, WELL
GROOMED, HIS SHOMS APPEARED TO BE SHINED, HE WAS VERY
AFFABLE, PARTICULAR -- THAT WORD JAS BEEN USED TODAY, 3UT ua
CERTAINLY WAS. HE WAS SHILING. WR CHATTED.
“If WASN'T SULKING OR HE WASN'T RANTING NOR WAS 3B
EVEN HARDLY RAISING HIS VOICE. IE WAS EVIDENCING GREAT
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
491
CONCERN OVER MIKE MINERVA AND HIS STAFF, BUT HE WASN'T DOING
SO IN AN OUT OF CONTROL TYPE VOICE, IF YOU FOLLOW HE.
Q. DID HE APPEAR TO BE HYPERACTIVE?
A. Wo, SIR.
Q. PACE ABOUT THE ROOM UNCONTROLLABLY?
A. NO, SIR, HE DID NOT.
Q. WERE HIS SPEECH PATTERNS IN A NORMAL OR WERE THEY
RAPID?
A. WELL, I HADN'T TALKED TO HIM, YOU KNOW, I HADN'T
TALKED TO HIM BEFORE SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS NORMAL SPEECH
PATTERN WAS, BUT THEY WERE THE SAME THEN WHICH I WOULD CALL
MODULATED OR NORMAL AS THEY WERE A FEW DAYS LATER, I THINK
THE NEXT DAY WHEN I TALKED TO HIM ON THE TELEPHONE AND A FEW
DAYS LATER WHEN I TALKED TO HIM IM THE LOCK Up AT THE LEON
COUNTY JAIL SEFORE THE HARING ON COMPETENCY.
Q. YOU ALLUDED TO YOUR CONVERSATION WITH HR. BUNDY
REGARDING MR. SPLNKELINK., DID HE APPEAR TO YOU TO
APPRECIATE THS NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE PENALTY UE WAS
FACING? _ - -
A. HE DID, BUT HE DID NOT WANT TO GO IN, DID NOT WANT TO
SEEM TO GO INTO TYE MERITS, 3UT THAT'S NOT SURPRISING
BECAUSE I WASN'T APPOINTED TO REPRESENT “HIM OM THE MERITS
AND WE OTDN'T REALLY GO INTO THAT. ‘WHEN I SAY THQ REFERENCE
TO-SPINKELINK, I THINK HE PROBABLY SAID OH, YES, YOU WERE
SPINKELINK'S LAWYER.
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
13
492
Q. SO IT WASN'T ANYTHING THAT WAS A REAL POINT OF ‘HE
CONVERSATION OR YOUR PURPOSE TO BE THERE?
A. NO, NO.
Q. DID HE SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE TRIAL
PROCESS, THE ADVERSARIAL PROCESS?
Ae YES, SIR, WH UNDERSTOOD IT VERY WELL. IN MY JUDGMENT,
BECAUSE HE TALKED AND WE TALKED ABOUT, THERE WAS SOME
DISCUSSION ABOUT A POSSIBLE CHANGE OF VENUE, I REMEMBER THAT
CAME UP, AND HE DISCUSSED CERTAIN LEGAL-PRINCIPLES THAT
INDICATED TO ME HES XNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS WAS.
Q. WAS HE ABLE TO SHARE WITH YOU CERTAIN FACTS TO THIS
PARTICULAR MOTION THAT YOU FELT WERE HELPFUL?
Ae NO, NOT REALLY. THE ONLY THING THAT HE INDICATED THAT
HE WAS INSISTENT THAT HE WAS COMPETENT NOW, THAT HE HAD
VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT COULD CORROBORATE HIS COMPETENCY, AND
THAT HE SEEMINGLY INDICATED NE WAS GIVEN THESE MEDICAL EXAMS
OR THESE PSYCHIATRIC UXAMS LARGELY WITHOUT i118 CONSENT. IT
WAS MINERVA'S IDEA. AND HE THOUGHT IT WAS A BAD TACTIC AND
BAD JUDGMENT AND HOST OF ALL IT WASN'T TRUE, EB WAS
COMPETENT AS THE DAY WAS LONG AND HE WANTED TO GO TO TRIAL.
Qo. DID MR. BUNDY APPEAR TO YOU TO UNDERSTAND [1 CONCEPT
OF COMPETENCY T0 GO TO TRIAL? : _ —_ 7 7
A. THAT'S A -- YOU KNOW, HE APPEARED TO WH TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT I WAS SAYING AND HE APPEARED TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE
OF THE HEARING. WE DID NOT WANT TO BE ADJUDGED INCOMPETENT
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
493
TO STAND TRIAL. HE WANTED HiS TRIAL TO BE HAD. HIS ONLY
FUSS THAT HE DIDN'T THINK HIS LAWYERS WERE READY TO TRY IT
RIGHT THEN. HE HAD FILED I THINK THE DAY BEFORE A MOTION
FOR CONTINUANCE. BUT NOTHING WAS RAISED, I MEAN, HE DIDN'T
INDICATES TO ME THAT HE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE TESTS FOR
COMPETENCY.
AND i INDICATED TO HIM I'M SURE WHAT I TELL EVERY
LAWYER THAT WANT TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES. I DON'T HAVE IT
InN hy NOTES, BUT I OFTENTIMES COME ACROSS DEFENDANTS -THAT
WANT TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES. IT JUST HAPPENS IN OUR -
PRACTICE THAT, ESPECIALLY REPEAT OFFENDERS, THEY COME BACK
AND THEY, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE READ SOME LAW BOOKS IN THE
STATES PRISON SYSTSM, BUT THEY WANT TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.
AND I HAVE A VERY STANDARD LITTLE TALK I GIV@ THEM AND I'VE
BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS AND I WOULD GUESS i PROBABLY TOLD
HR. BUNDY THE SAME THING, BUT I CAN'T BE FOR SURE.
IT'S GENERALLY AGAINST, I ALMOST INVARIABLY ADVISE
AGAINST ANYBODY REPRESENTING THEMSELVES, AND I TELL THEM A
STORY CONNECTED WITH THAT, AND I USUALLY SAY i'it NOT
COMPETENT TO REPRESENT MYSELF. AND I TELL THHM A STORY
WHERE £ WAS INVOLVED IN A SMALL CIVIL CASE AND HIRED A
LAWYER AND I KEPT BADGURING HY LAWYER THE WHOLE TIME UNTIL
WE FINALLY TOLD ME TO SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN AND LET HIM TRY
TI CASE, WICH NS DID AND WHICH HE WON, FUSS OVER SOME
INVESTMENT,
JNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
494
I REALIZED AFTER THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T
THINK HARDLY ANYBODY DOS A VERY GOOD JOB OF REPRESENTING
THEMSELVES. JI THINK IT'S ALMOST A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
THAT'S FROM A. WISDOM STANDPOINT, THAT'S NOT FROM A, FROM THE
ACTUAL ABILITY TO GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS. I JUST DON'T
THINK IT'S A VERY SMART IDEA AND I'M SURE I TOLD MR. BUNDY
THAT.
Q. DID YOU HAVE OCCASION AFTER THE HEARING CONCLUDED TO
EVER SEE HRs -BUNDY AGAIN? ~
A. OH, YES. SOMETIME LATER ON THE FOURTEENTH OF AUGUST I
GOT ANOTHER CALL FROM JUDGE COWART, SOMETIME IN TUE
AFTERNOON. HE ADVISED ME THAT THE DEFENDANT, UR. BUNDY, WAS
Ik
a
NEED OF A LAWYER TO HANDLE HIS APPEAL AND I DON'T KNOW IF
HE NAD CONFERRED, IF JUDGE COWART HAD CONFERRSD WITY UR.
BUNDY OR NOT, BUT ANYWAY, HE SAID I WAS APPOINTED TO HANDLE
THE APPEAL AND WOULD I PLEASE SELECT A CO-COUNSEL. AND wE—
ALSO WANTED ME TO DRAFT THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND ARGUE
IT OR PRESENT IT TO THE COURT BECAUSE THE SENTENCING HAD
GONE FORWARD, APPARENTLY inv MIAMI AFTER THE VENUE WAS
CHANGED, BUT if WAS COMING BACK TO TALLAHASSEE I ASSUMED FOR
SOME POST TRIAL MOTIONS, PROBABLY TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND TO
HEAR THAT MOTION FOR WEN TRIAL. —_
SO MY CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS WITI 3UNDY
FROM THAT POINT ON, I BT NIM AT Ta LhOM COUNTY JAIL AGAIU,
THIS WAS -- WELL, I TALKED TO HIM ON TUE TELEPHONE, AND THEN
UNITSD STATES COURT REPORTER
495
i WET Hid AT THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL SEARING IN TAB LION
COUNTY COURTHOUSE ON THE DAY, LET'S SEE, THAT WOULD BE THE
TWENTY BIGHTH, TWENTY EIGHTH OF AUGUST, f GUESS, OF THAT
YEAR. AND I MBPT WIT HIM AND CONFERRED WITH HIM ABOUT THD
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. AND I STAYED HIS LAWYER AT LEAST, FOR
APPELLATE PURPOSES, UNTIL NOVEMBER OF 1990.
BUT I HESITATE TO ADD THAT IN THAT INTERVENING
THIRTEEN MONTHS ALMOST NOTHING WAS DONE BECAUSE OF THE
- VOLUMINOUS RECORD FROM ALL OVER THE STATE THAT WE HAD TO
GATHER AND MY FILES ONLY LARGELY REFLECT DURING THAT PERIOD
OF TIME SOMZ LETTERS BACK AND FORTH, BUT MOSTLY GETTING
EXTENSIONS OF TIHE FOR THE FILING OF THE RECORD AND
TRANSCRIPTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
THEN IN NOVEHBGR OF 1980 I WAS OFFERED THE
POSITION ON A PART TINE BASIS OF COVERING JEFFERSON COUNTY
ONLY WITH THE P.D, OFFICE, AND WHEN I ACCEPTED THAT, SINCE
PART OF THE APPEAL WAS HIS DISPUTE WITH MINERVA AND WINERVA
WAS STILL A P.D., ALTHOUGH HE HAD LOST ELECTION IN 1930 AND
A WEW PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS COMING IN, I THEN FELT LIAu i
SHOULD WITHDRAW AND I WITHDREW BECAUSE OF THAT CONFLICT AND
NOTIFIED MR. BUNDY IN NOVEMBER OF 1980. 80 THAT CONCLUDED
HY REPRESENTATION, ee Sok -
Q. RECOGNIZING THE TIMZ SPENT WITH HR. BUNDY AND THR TING
YOU SPOKE WITH NIM ON TIE PHONES WERE BRIEF, HOWEVER, GIVEN
THAT AMOUNT OF TIME, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
496
NOT THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY WAS COMPSTENT TO STAND TRIAL?
MR. COLEMAN: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
A. I HAVE AN OPINION. MY OPINION IS THAT UNDER THE
EXISTING FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN EXISTENCE AT
THAT TIME, FROM WHAT I COULD OBSERVE AS A LAYMAN WITH I
THINK A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA, THAT HE WAS
COMPETENT, OR IF I MAY CONTINUE, HAD HE CHALLENGED IT, HE
WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND COMPETENT. ~ _ ~ - a
HG DID NOT FIT THE TESTS, ANY OF THE TESTS IN MY
JUDGMENT, TO HAVE DETERMINED HIM TO BE INCOMPETENT TO STAND
TRIAL. ; ;
HR. DORAN: THANK YOU, MR. HAYES. I'LL TENDER THE
WITNESS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION.
CROSS BXAMINATION
BY MR. COLEMAN:
Qe AR YOU READY, MR. HAYES?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. NOW, MR. HAYES, FROM HY COUNT IT LOOKS LIKE you wet
WITH MR. BUNDY TWICE AND TALKED TO HIM ON THE PHONE TWICz?
AY THAT'S PROBABLY CORRECT.
Q. AND THE FIRST TIME i THINK YOU SAID YOU MET WITH HIM
FOR ABOUT AN HOUR?
A. ONE POINT FIVE i THINK £T SAYS ON MY TIME SLIP.
Q. OKAY. ONE POINT FIVE. AND THEN THE SECOND TINE, DO
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
24
25
HAYSE-c.
“COLEIAN
497
YOU RECALL?
A. YES. SECOND TIME WAS BEFORE THE HEARING, i THIUK My
TIME RECORDS SHOW THAT I GOT THERE AT 8:45 AND MET HIM IN
THE JAIL LOCK UP AND THE HEARING STARTED AT 9:30, SO THIRTY
MINUTES, FORTY FIVE MINUTES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. A LITTLE
OVER TWO HOURS.
Q AND THAT WAS THE TOTAL TIME YOU SPENT WITH HIM?
A. WELL, THAT'S CORRECT. SOME PHONE CALLS AND OTHER
CONTACTS, BUT ACTUALLY FACE TO FACE TIME, A COUPLE HOURS. -
Q. NOW, YOU NEVER DISCUSSED WITH MR. BUNDY THE FACTS ON
WHICH THE MOTIONS WERE BASED TO HAVE HIS COMPETENCY
DETERMINED, DID YOU? - -
A. I INDICATED TO HIM, AND I GUESS, IF THIS IS FACTS, LET
WE EXPLAIN. I INDICATED TO 5
“CHAT MIKE MINERVA HAD TOLD
ME THAT HE, MIKE MINDRVA, HAD CONTACTED HIS DOCTORS AND
TALKED TO ONE OF THE DOCTORS ABOUT THEIR RESULTS AND THAT
HE, HIKE MINERVA, FELT £T WAS AN ISSUE THAT HAD TO BE
RAISED. THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS I WENT. ALTHOUGH I THINK i
SHARED WITH HIM, I HAD PICKED UP ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS THE
DAY BEFORE DR. TANAY'S REPORT AND i'M POSITIVE I SHARED THAT
WITH HIM, BITYBR GIVING WIM A COPY OR READING TO NIM PROM uv
COPY. 7
9. THIS IS THE RSPORT THAT DR. TANAY PREPARED IN HICH an
EXPRESSED THE OPINION TSAT MR, BUNDY WAS NOT COMPETENT?
A. (HE OPINION I'i REFERRING TO IS MAY 21 OF --
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
| AYES-CROSS-COLBANN
498 |
| 1] 9. YES.
ne 2| A. HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.
3/ Q. BUT THAT'S THE OPINION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE
{ 4| MAY 21 OPINION?
E : ~ 5] A. THAT'S CORRECT. i
- 6) Q. DID YOU EVER DISCUSS THAT OPINION WITH DR. TANAY?
4 7) Ae PRIOR TO THE HEARING? a
a] Q. YES.
‘= 9; A. NOW — _
i 10} Q. SO THE ONLY DISCUSSION YOU HAD WITH DR. TANAY IS WHAT |
K 11 | OCCURRED AT THE HRARING, IS THAT CORRECT?
& 12] A. THAT'S CORRECT. DR. TANAY I BELIEVE WAS OUT OF STATE
me 13 | BY THAT TIME AND I THINK I MAY HAVE MADE ONE ATTEMPT, BUT I |
14 | COULD NOT REACH HIM. SUT I RSHIND YOU, AND I'M SURE YOU
be 15 | KNOW, MR. COLEMAN, THAT HE DID NOT SAY THAT HE THOUGHT HE |
' 16 | WAS COMPETENT, WHAT HE SAID, AND I'H QUOTING -- ~
lee 17/ 9. WELL, MR. HAYES ~~ |
c 18] a. THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF. |
E - -19| Q.--BxACTLY. - - a se oo |
20). | - OW, WHEN YOU TALKED TO AR. BUNDY, DID HE EXPRESS
i
21| ANY CONCERN AT ALL ABOUT THE CHARGES AGAINST MIM AND ABOUT
22) THE CONSEQUENCES Lf HE WERE CONVICTED?
23| a. No.
241 4. pID HE EVER vURING THE TIME THAT vou saw HIM, EITAGR
25 | FOR THE COMPETENCY OR FOR THE APPEAL AND THE MOTION FOR A
{
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
SSC Jaded
NEW TRIAL, BXPRESS ANY CONCERN?
A. NO. AND I FOUND THAT, NOT NECESSARILY THE COMPETENCY
COURT, HERE WAS A MAN WHO WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED 'TO THE
CHAIR, AND i DID REMARK THAT £ FOUND iT UNUSUAL THAT 25
WASN'T EXTREMELY ANXIOUS AND UPSET BY THAT BECAUSE IN MY
EXPERIENCE ALL DEFENDANTS CAN TALK ABOUT AT THAT POINT IS
WHEN, HOW MUCH TIME HAVE I GOT. TO THAT EXTENT, I WOULD
CONSIDER THAT OUT OF THE NORM, UNUSUAL. _
Q. AWD IH FACT, HE BASICALLY DISMISSED THE WHOLE THING
AND THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS SOME LEGAL PROBLEMS THAT WOULD BE
TAKEN CARE OF ON APPEAL, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
A. THE ADJECTIVE THAT COMES TO HIND IS BLASE ABOUT THE
CONVICTION WHICH, AS I INDICATED, I FOUND UNUSUAL.
Q. NOW, ISN'T IT ALSO CORRECT THAT DURING THE TINE THAT
YOU REPRESENTSD Nid IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPETENCY AATTER
HE HAD NO DNTEREST IN ADDRESSING TUH MERITS OF THAT ISSUE?
A. NO. IS INTEREST AND HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO ME WERE TO
NOT ADDRESS, NOT GET INTO THE FACTS, YOR INSTANCE, OF DR.
KLECKLEY'S FINDING OF SOCIOPATHY BUT COMPETENT, AND DR.
TANAY'S FINDINGS, I BELIEVE, OF PSRSONALITY DISORDER. HE
DID NOT WANT TO EXPLORE, LEST IT 3E iNTERPRETED TO BE AN
ADMISSION THAT 5 WAS SOMBHOW INCOMPETENT.
Q. RIGHT, AND ZOU ABIDED BY THAT WISH ON HIS PART?
A. YES. I PELT I HAD NO CHOICE. I WAS APPOINTED TO
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER -
HaveS-CROS8-COLsuA
500
1 REPRESENT HIM, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTED TO. vO, UNLESS NE WAS
2 ASKING ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT BOTHERED ME SO MUCH I WOULD
3 HAVE TO GO TO THE JUDGE TO ADHERE TO HIS WISHES, I WAS GOING
4 TO FOLLOW WHAT HE TOLD ME.
5 Q. NOW, DIDN'T YOU ALSO GET THE IMPRESSION THAT MR.
6 BUNDY'S REAL INTEREST IN THESE PROCEEDINGS WAS TO APPEAR TO
7 BE A SOPHISTICATED LAWYER IN A HIGH PROFILED CASE?
8 A. I FORMED THAT JUDGMENT, I THINK, AT THE MOTION FOR NEW
9 TRIAL AFTER TALKING AND READING ABOUT. THE NEWSPAPER THAT, _
10 AND I DID ADMIT I READ ALL THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF IT AND
11 I FORMED A SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL JUDGMENT THAT HE WAS
12 INTERESTED IN BEING A HIGH PROFILE LAWYER.
24
25
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER
a
wo
wo
ios
13
et
oO
4
x
(a
a
ra]
TAVED EVEN AFTER
HE HAD SEEN CONVI
A. THAT'S CORR
Qo. NOW YOU SAIO THAT AT SOME POINT YOU
SCUSSED FERETTA
WITH MR. BUNDY DE, THAT’S A CASE THAT HAS TS DO WITH THE
RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF. IS THAT
CORRECT.
A. VES.
TD DO WITH COMPETENCY AS
4S0U7 THE FERETTA CASE,
E WAS AWARE
THAT HIS RIGHTS “9 REPRESENT HIMSELF HAD BEEN RECENTLY
CASE AND U.S. SUPREME COURT.
QO. NOW YOU ALSG ANEW THAT MR. MINERVA WANTED TO
IE THAT CORRECT?
A. T DON'T KNGW. TODENTT RAVE ANY. T SON'T HAVE ANY
EITHER, NOTHING IN MY
NO COMMUNICATION FROM MR.
MINERVA THAT “E WAN
TFY AT THE HEARING. 1 3ELIEVE
HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
Oo. AND 8 MINERVA WAS NOT PERMITTED TO
A i DON‘
TOANCW THAT “E ASKED. -THAT'S SEEN 7 OR 8 YEARS
AGO. fT DON'™ RECALL. T HAVEN'T SEEN THE TRANSCRIPT. i
DON'T
FMR MINERVA
ASKING TO
cy
oT
o
~ COLEMAN
Q WELL, ISN'T IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT MR. BUNDY
INSISTED THAT HE NOT SE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY?
A. THAT MAY WELL BE TRUE, BUT T CAN'T, I CAN'T UNDER OATH
STATE THAT'S WEAT OCCURRED. MAY WELL SE TRUE SECAUSE 4= WAS
UPSET, VERY UPSET. S8OTH MR, MINERVA AND I BELIEVE LYNN
THOMPSON WAS HELPING OUT MIKE MINERVAS OFFICE, AND PROBABLY
ED HARVEY, AND HE WAS UPSET WITH EVERYBODY IN THAT OFFICE
ALSO FATR TO SAY THAT NCBODY AT THE HEARING,
DEFENSS ATTEMPTED TO DEVELOP THE FACTS UPON
WHICH THE SOURT COULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT MR. BUNDY WAS
INCOMPETENT?
MR. DORAN: 1 CBJECT. Ii THINK THE RECORD SPEAKS
FOR ITSELF.
THE 5 1 SORRY, DJUESTION 1S NOBODY URGED
THE iNCOMPETANCE.
SY MR. COLEMAN:
Q. NOBODY ATTEMPTED TO DEVELOP ° FACTS AT THAT HEARING
UPON- WHICH THE COURT COULD HAVE DETERMINED MR. BUNDY WAS
A. NO. f OON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE. IF T RECOLLECT. I
BELIEVE JUDGE COWART HIMSELF CONDUCTED ThE INGUIRY OF COCTOR
TINAY.
Q. THAT'S CORRECT, BUT T AM
THE DEFENSE?
C ota. WELL, NO,
fer
oO
2
£
a
=
a
x
ME, WAS OPERATIN NOT TO PROCEED. STATE SURE
4
| : ENOUGH WASN'T THE MOTION.
a . TSN'T OT TT TSUE THAT ALTHOUGH YOU
5 REPRESENTED MR. SUNDY AT THE COMPETENCY HEARING, YOU DIC
6 NOTHING TO DETERMINE IF IN FACT HE WAS COMPETENT?
7 A. COMPETENT
TO STAND TRIAL?
a 3 3 OCN'T THINK THAT'S
° AS A PART OF MY REPRESENTATION OF THE DEFENOANT
12 VERY IMPORTANT. 1 LIKE TO TALK TO
3 THEM. HAD [ FELT IN MY JJOGMENT, BASED ON mY
4 TALKING WITH MR, SUND\ THAT THERE WAS
“Ss A SERTOUS PROBLEM, MY CONDUCT MAY HAVE 3EEN DIFFERENT. ONE
“7 OBSERVE HIS DJEMEANOR, HOW HE LOOKS, HCW HE TALKS, HOW HE
16 SPEAKS, IT WANT TO KNOW HAS THERE SEEN A PRIOR PSYCHIATRIC
COMMITMENT. GO WHEN YOU SAY [ DID NOTHING, { S10, 1 TOOK NO
o
20 APFIRMATIVE ACTION, F WOULD SUGGEST THAT WAS PROPERLY
OBJECTIVE CRITERTA FROM WHAT ¢
ELTHER DO SOMETHING GR GO CALL THE
22 SAW THAT WOULD
23 JUDGMENT REALLY WORRIED ME.
4 TRAT 2 WIE TCATICN, THE ANSWER TD YOUR
2S QUE N IS NO 1 AN
“4
wo
ie
oo
o
HAYES ~ CROSS ~ COLEMAN
Q. IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH YOU DEALT WITH MR. BUNDY, WAS
IN DISCUSSING WITH HIM HIS ACAMENT POSITION THAT COMPETENCY
NOT BE DEALT INTO AT THAT HEARING, 4T THAT HEARING; IS ThA™
CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. COLEMAN: THAT'S ALL T HAVE.
MR. DORAN: WE HAVE NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE
WITNESS. WE ASK HE BE EXCUSED *80M THE SUBPOENA.
YOU ARE EXOUSED.
THANK YOUL YOUR HONOR.
MR. MENSER: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE WOULD CALL
DOCTOR PETER MACALUSO.
6
DOCTOR PETER MAC
ANYTHING WITH TH
i
PRIVATE PRACTICE
Q. IN THE COURSE
ALD SOU
HAVES - OROSS - COLEMAN
ALUSS,
HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. MENSER:
Q. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR OCCUPATION” FOR THE RECORD,
PLEASE?
A. TAM A MEDTCAL JOCTOR, PHYSICIAN. - _
Q. AND WHERE ARE VOU EMPLOYED, SIR?
A. MY OFFICE IG iN "ALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA.
QO. YOU CURRENTLY ARE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE?
A. YES I AM.
Qo. HOW LONG KAVE YOU SEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE?
A. 1 FINISHED MEDICAL DEGREE IN 1674, HAVE BEEN IN
SINCE ABOUT 1979.
THAT PRIVATE PRACTICE, DO YOU DO
EON COUNTY JAIL?
A YES, 2 DO FOR COUPLE YEARS. _
QO. AND YEARS WERE THOSE?
A. 1973 TO 197
Oo. WHAT WAS YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE JAIL?
A Y WAS TRE SHY LEON COUNTY JAIL, SEEING
COMPLAINTS AND TREATING THEM.
MEDICAL TRAINING?
ly
|
A. VES. 1 TOOR MY UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL AT DESMCIN
UNIVERSITY IN SYRACUSE, GRADUATE WORK AT UNIVERSITY OF
BUFFALO AND THEN BACK AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.
DID A MASTER THESIS IN BIO- CHEMISTRY, 19789.
MAMAR, NEWFOUNDLAND, AND RECEIVED MY MEDICAL DEGREE FRGN
THERE IN i974; SUBSEQUENTLY DID A THREE YEAR PRACTICE, THREE
YEAR RESIDENCY IN FAMILY PRACTICE FROM "74 TO '?7.
QO. HAVE YOU HAD ANY PARTICULAR SPECIALIZE
oO
DRUGS OR ALCHOLSL, HAVE YOU HAD, OR USE?
A. YES, [ aM aA ADDICTIONOLOGIST AND SECAME
CERTIFIED IN 1983.
oO. CERTIFIED SY wHoM?
A. THE AMERICAN
y
Me
re
TY FOR THE TREATMENT OF
ALCOHOLISM AND OTHE
EMOANCIES.
Oo. HAVE YOU BEEN OUALTFIED 45 AN EXPERT WITNESS ih
ALCHOLOL AND ORUG DEPENDANCY?
AL YES, MANY TIMES.
QO. COULD YOU TELL US «aH SOURTS?
A.” 80TH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS IN FLORIDA AND OUTSIDE
OF FLORIDA.
MR. MENSER: WE WOULD TENOER THIS WITNESS AS AN
Ow THE RELEVANCE OF
QUESTIONING.
a
~A
18 IT ADDICTIONGL
VEG
MAN
NEW FIELO
THE RT: WOU ARE QUALIFIED IN IT.
BY MR. MEN 7
Q. DOCTOR, SID YOU HAVE GCCASION TO COME IN CON
THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY? _ _ _ .
4 YE3. ¢ bt5 :
re WHEN WAS THAT. SIR?
A “QO "HE 3EST OF MY RECOLLECTION, SIR.
1978, A
we HM
“AVE YOU
RECORDS?
A. ves, HAVE.
QO. AND ARE YOU
A VES
Q.
DIAGNOST STATEME!
AND SY NURSES ON 3
ND EARLY PART OF 4197S,
AVE PREVIOUS
m
LY PROVIDED WITH WHAT
ro)
a
ia
TACT Wi
THAT WAS TOWARDS
eAD SN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE
FAMILIAR WITH THOSE RECORDS?
INCLUOE MEDICAL
NTS AND OBSERATIONS PREPARED BY
AT THE HOSPITAL, OR JAIL, 18
TRE
YOURSELF
3 TAT
vA
|
SAYES - OROSS - COLEMAN
| 3c8
¢ Ol A, THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
| 2/9. DURING THE-- HOW MANY TIMES OLD YOU MEET WITH TED
q 3 | BUNDY?
aja. APPROXIMATELY SEVEN, SIGHT, NINE TIMES.
5 | 0. AND DIC YOU HAVE AN G&SERVATION, DID YOU HAVE AN
5 | OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE MR. BUNDY DURING THAT?
| 7 1A. ON THOSE OCCASIONS I DID, YES.
F 8 | o. ANY 97 THOSE OCCASIONS DID HE STRIKE YOU AS BEING
7 S OR HIGH ON pRugS? 7 :
“ “oO | A. NO
p rye. MEDICATION FOR MR. BUNDY YOURSELS?
12 4 A
a “3 1 Q. WHAT MEDICATION DID YOU PRESCRIBE?
: 141A CALLED ATIVAN, WH 138
i:
; 15 | MILD TRANCUILIZER, AND ALSO LIMBITROL AND CLOROHYDRATE.
ij 16 1 0, BEFORE PRESGRIGING THIS MEDICATION FOR MR. BUNDY,
fi 17 | YOU PROCJRE SOME <IND OF MEGICAL HISTORY FROM HIM?
- 16 | A. YES. 2 EVALUATED HIM, MET WITH HIM, MET WITH
4 73 | NURSE WHO CONTACT WITH HIM THEN I. ARRIVED AT “vy
20 DIAGNOSIS AND
24 o. IS ATIVAN 3
13 RECOMENDED FOR SFCPL=E
22 ORDER, PSYCHOSIS? _ ;
23 | 4. NO
ge | 8 HOW ABOUT
wm
BAYES ~ CROSS ~ COLEMAN
E59
Q. ARE THERE ANY PRECAUTIONS CONCERNING POSSIBLE SUICIDE
WITH ATIVAN?
A. YES, WELL, I TMINK THERE'S PRECAUTIONS CF ALL
PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS, CERTAINLY WHEN ATIVAN [3S GIVEN, GONE
SHOULD CBSERVE FOR SUICIDE IN ANY PATIENT.
Q. WELL, ASSUMING FROM WHAT SAID HE DOESN'T HAVE A MANIC
DEPRESSIVE PSYCHOSIS, COULD YOU TELL THE COURT WHY YCU AOLLO
HAVE PRESCRIBED ATIVAN?
A. YES. TM MY OS TNTON TN EVALUATING MR. BUNOY. 4 WAS
DISPLAYING ACUTE SITUATIONAL ANXIETY, AND SY THAT > MEAN, TS
GIVE AN EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE GETS A CALL FROM THE
WOULD HAVE ACUTE SITUATIONAL ANXIETY. AND THAT’S A STATE
THAT'S PRECIPITATED SY ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATIONS WHERE SOME
ED OR CAN GE COME CU
Q. COULD I ASK YOU THE SAME SCUESTION NOW AS TO LIMBITROL?
A. LIMBITROL IS RECOMENDED IN, AND USED SOTH FOR ANXIETY,
FOR DEPRESSION, OR FOR Y WITH DEPRESSION, WHICH iS
TERMED AGITATED DEPRESSION.
Q. BUT THAT IS MANIS DEPRESSIVE PSYCHOSIS, 18 IT?
A, NO
%. VOU MAY REFER TO YOUR NOTES ON THIS, BUT CALLING YOUR
ATTE © JUNE THE A, HAVE YOu
HAD OPSORTUNITY TO REVIEW PARTICULAR
DATE?
A JUNE THE FIRST?
an
te
o
Sct
c. YES?
A. JUST GIVE ME A MINU FIND THEM,
A YES, I HAVE THEN,
ie) YOU SEE A REFEQENSS TO A SUICIDE WATCH?
AY 7 AM LOOKING AT MY CWN > ? BON'™.
°°. MAYBE I HAVE WRONG PAGE. BUT ARE YOU AWARE
WHETHER OR NOT MR. BUNDY WAS EVER PLACED ON A SUICIDE WATCH?
T HE wAs.
A NO
0. HAVE YOU IN UNDERSTANOING THIS WKY HE WAS PLACED ON
SUICIDE WATCH?
A. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS-=
Me. COLEMAN: OBJECTION UNLESS
KNOWLEDGE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. MENSER:
oO. THANK YOU, DOCTOR.
NE HAD TESTIMONY THE
BLUEISH GRAY OR GR
EN PILLS wHICH WERE
TO MR. BUNOY, APPARENTLY.
AS AN EXPERT IN THE
LD, GIVEN THAT DES
HE HAS DIRECT
OTHER DAY REGARSING
INTERCEPTED IN ROUTE
oO
a
ad
4
fo}
z
BLUEISH GRAY, GREEN PILLS, CAN YOU POSSIBLY STATE THAT THAT
WAS SOME KIND OF PSYCHOTRIPIC ORUG GR MIND ALTERING DRUG?
a. T CAN'T POSITIVELY STATE THAT IT
COULO f= ANYTHING.
wn
o
o
re
3 EMAN
t
C
oe
G
oO
¢
i
oO
a
o. IS 17 POSSIBLE THOSE WERE EVEN VITIMINS OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT?
A. COULD BE, YES.
QO. IN THE COURSE OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL CAREER, HAVE YOU
COME INTO CONTACT WITM VARIOUS THEORIES REGARDING WHAT CAN
ENHANCE OR OFFSET THE AFFECTS OF ALCHOLOL IN AN INDIVIDUAL?
A. WELL, I THINK 1 AM AWARE OF WHAT IS SOME OF THE 4
c
GENERAL THINGS THAT ME PEOPLE BELIEVE.
ARE AWARE OF THAT SOMES
Oo
COULD CONSUME ALCHOLOL, SAY VODKA, AND THEN COUNTERACT THE
EFFECTS OF THE ALCPOLS. EY TAKING VITAMINS?
A, COFFEE, COLD SHOWERS.
oO.
A YES, =
QO. AND IN FACT THAT BELIEVE-— LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE
YOU FAMILIAR
A. YE
ao
Q. WOULD YOU GAY THAT
IS PROMOTED iN PART
BECAUSE BREATHALIZER READINGS CAN 8E DEPRESSED BY THE
CONSUMPTION OF VITAMIN O°? - - -
MR. COLEMAN: 1 OSJEOT TO ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS
ALONG THIS LINE, I THINK THIS i$ GETTING INTO SPECULATION.
TRE COURT: I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
2¥ MR. MENSER:
Q. THANK YOU. YOUR HONOR.
GOING TO THE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL ON AN INDIVIDUAL
WOULD THE FACT THAT A PERSON CONSUMED ALCHCLOL SAY
LET'S IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL LET'S SAY FOR LUNCH, WHILE FE WAS
APPEARING IN COURT, WOULD THAT NECESSARILY IMPAIR HIS
PERFORMANCE OR HIS COGNATIVE FUNCTIONS DURING THE ENSUING
oo
fo
NO. NOT NECESSARILY.
WHAT KINO OF FACTORS WOULD BE INVOLVED?
ALCHOLOL INGES
N@ FURTHER. WHANA YOU.
A LOOK AT YOUR CROER,
J.D LOOK AT THE ONE FOR
COULD You SIR.
WELL, < GUESS FIVE OF SEVEN i THAT HELPS?
FIVE OF SEVEN?
HESE NOTES RETER TO AN EXAMINATION OF MR. SUNDY'S 3Y
C ‘ YOU ON NOVEMBER SECOND, "978?
2 A. YES, THEY 3O.
! 3 Q. AND WITH RESPECT TO YOUR O8SERVATION, HIS MENTAL
4 CONDITION, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU FOUND CN THAT SAY?
eee
a
A. YES, UNDER MENTAL, WE HAVE ANXIETY TWO PLUS, THAT'S MY
a
6 CONNOTATION. MOST CONNOTATIONS OF PHYSICIANS, THAT WOULD
7 INDICATE A MODERATE AMOUNT OF ANXIETY. IN OTHER WORDS WE
Feng
o
NORMALLY TERM "HAT =R0OM A ZERO TO FOUR PLUS SCALE AND.
E 9 | Q FOUR PLUS 1S THE TOP?
: 10 | AL THAT'S CORRECT, FOUR PLUS.
r 11,1 9. SO THIS IS MODERATE?
12 A. YES. AND ALSO UNDER MENTAL WE HAVE NO REAL SIGNS 3F
rs
a
ro]
a
<
rs)
x
oS
o
ree
iG)
SOA CAN YOu
WHAT WAS YOUR CONCERN ON THIS
15 DAY WHEN YOU MET WITH MR. BUNDY?
raore FR
z
Oo
16 | A. THE MAIN CONCERN, SIR, WAS HIS COMPLAINTS WAS THAT oF
k 17 | RECTAL BLEEDING
cp | 9 AND THE ANXIETY <3 SOMETH THAT YOU NOTED IN THE
k +9 | COURSE OF YOUR EXAMINATION SOR SOME OTHER REASON?
(a 20 | A. THAT'S CORRECT. ~~ -
21 | oc. MOW WOULD YOU TURN 7S PASE THREE GF SEVEN. AND THIS
ERY
9
2
TS A NOTE AND REFERRING TO APRIL 47. 1979, 1 SELIEVE?
«, +
nD
oO
Pr
<
m
oO
SF THE PAGE “HERE'S A REFERENCE TQ A ORUG, CAN
ae YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT IS OR 15 iT &
ERENCE TO A DRUG. fT
3
HAVE NO==
A. YES, i7 18, YOU ARE CORRECT. TH
ADOREX. MY ASSESSMENT ON THIS DATE, IF YOU LOOK UNDES IA
THE MIGOLE OF THE PAGE. A, IS DERMATITIS, WHICH I5 A
CONDITION. SASTCALLY HE HAD & RASH ANT) ADORAX WAS
PRESCRIBED FOR ITCHING. ~
Oo
Zz
Oo
=
ON MAY FOURTEEN, 1979, PAGE TWO OF SEVEN, =
BUESS. SHVSICTANS ORDER, YOU SEE THAT?
4 YES, 2 De
Oo. MOW SEAR YOU PRESCRIBED ATIVAN: I3 THAT CORRECT?
A TRAT'S CORRECT
0. AND YOU TSENTIFIED THAT AS A MILD TRANQUILIZER. WHAT
ARE THE INDICATIONS FOR THIS DRUG?
Oo. NOW 4&7 THE TIME THAT YOU PRESCRIBED THIS DRUG, YOU
WERE A RESIDENT, 18 THAT CORRECT, CR=- WERE YOU A RESIDENT?
A. NO.
Q. YOU WERE A PRACTICING PHYSICIAN?
A. YES.
QO. CONSULT WITH ANYBODY ABOUT YOUR PRESCRIPTIONS
OR DID You 3
a
J THIS ON YOUR OWN?
MY ORDERS AT THIS TIME.
Q. NOW ON MAY 75, 1979, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR NOTES
SAY AND TELL ME WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF “HOSE ARE?
YES. CECISERING MY NOTES. MR. BUNDY WAS COMPLAINING
>
WACALUSO - CROSS -
iC ° OF ANXIETY OVER & TEREE WEEK PERIOD OF TIME.
2 2. AND ALSO INSOMNIS?
3 A. INSOMNIA OVER 4 THREE WEEK PERIOD OF TIME
4 0. THAT'S THREE WEEKS UP TO THIS POINT?
5 A.
“| SIR. HE WAS ALERT, NO ACUTE
§ DISTRESS. HE MENTAL ASSESSMENT AT THAT TiME WAS ACUTE
7 ANXIETY NEUROSIS, WHICH IS WHAT WE JUST GOT THROUGH TALKING
8 ABOUT. - _
g °. WHAT SOULS THAT 32 ON YOUR SCALE?
10 bh WELL, 1 DON'T HAVE THE SCALE MARKED HERE. AS YOU CAN
4 BEE FROM MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS STILL MOCERATE.
ie C AROUND TWO PLUS?
F 13] A, VES
[. 410 NOW ON MAY OS, ON MAY, I
: 18 | BE THAT'S F , WE WERE JUST TALKING
c *§ | ORESCRISED “HE ATIVAN CRUSHED; IS THAT CORRECT?
p ia | A THAT'S CORRECT -
le 8 | oO. POINT OF THAT?
u : ts | AL THAT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT HE OR ANY
E 20 | PATIENT IS TAXING 17 AND NOT HOARDING IT.
| 21 | oO. WAS THERE SOME CONCERN THAT HE MIGHT BE HOARDING IT?
E 32 | A. THERE WAS. 7 TON'T REOALL THE DATE, QUT iTS IN THE
fe 25 | MEDICAL RECORD THAT A COUPLE TABLETS HAD BEEN FOUND IN HiS
7 ga} SELL.
25 2. DOCTOR, AS PART OF YOUR EVALUATION OF A PATEINT, ANO
MACALUSO = CROSS - COLEMAN
| B05
¢ 1 | YOUR TREATMENT OF A PATIENT, WOULD YOU REVIEW THE NURSES
| 2 | NOTES?
[ a] a. YES,
- a |. AS PARTS OF YOUR EXAMINATION?
E B | A. YES. NORMALLY ALL THE TIME WE TALK TO THE NURSE
6 | Q. LET ME ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE NURSES NOTES, I BELIEVE
7 THEY ARE PART OF STATES EXHISIT SIx.
Fra
wo
_ ?&GE CNE OF FOUR, ENTRY |
OR MAY 17, 7979.
10
>
g
ra
OF SIX?
10 9. TNE OF TWO. 1 DON'T HAVE ANY EXHIBIT SIX, BUT IT iS
Fes &Fa
+4 ENTRY FOR MAY 17, 1978.
E 12 A. I
“ 13 c. NOW, THAT REFERS TO MR. SUNOYS SPEECH BEING SLURRED,
[ 14 HIS PUPILS TILATED AND RESOTIVE?
a
+
&
SORRY, SIR. THIS i3-- 1 HAVE ONE OF TWO, iT'S
L 2)
NOT MAY 17.
a
oO
COULD YOU?
Te A. MAY 17.
pe]
rs)
4s
YES.
i DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF MY RECORD, IF YOU
Es)
o
°
>
Qt CARE TO READ IT.
ee
ry
te
Q. -ET ME wUST SHOW IT TO
23 9. 4S YOU ALSO POINTED OUT IN, ON THE NOTE EARLIER IN THE
te DAY ON MAY "7, MR, SUNOY WAG TO HAVE HAO AN UNSTEADY
25 | GATE WHEN LEAVING IF SLAMMER, “WEN LATER THAT DAY HIS
i
wo
ov
@
oO
a
MACTALUSO - CROSS ~ COLEMAN
317
SPEECH W4S SLURRED, 41S PUPILS DILATED AND REACTIVE.
AND WHAT wAS THE SIGNIFICANT OF THAT?
A. THE SIGNIFICANT WAS, AND AS IT'S INDICATED IN THOSE
MR, SUNDY APPARENTLY WAS HOARDING HIS
MEDICATION iN RE
HE WAS NOTICED TO HAVE THESE
SYMPTOMS, THE CELL WAS SEARCHED, COUPLE TABLETS WERE FOUND
AS I PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, MY ORDERS AT THAT TIME WERE TO
STOP THE ATIVAN SN5 85 WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, THEN
DATION WAS CRUSHED PRIOR TO BEING
GIVEN.
Q. NOW ON MAY 25, ACCORDING TO YOUR NOTES, PAGE TWO OF
YOU ORDERED THAT THE ATIVAN BE CRUSHED AND GIVEN
A Yes.
Q. QURING THIS PARTICSLAR WEEK, THE WEEK OF MAY 25?
A. THAT*S CORRECT. -
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE OCINT oF THAT WAS?
“A. ~~ THE POINT WAS’ HE, THE HISTORY WE WERE GETTING WAS HE
WAS DISPLAYING OR EXPERIENCING -ANG COMPLAINING OF ANXIETY
DURING
DAY, AND THAT'S WHY THIS PARTICULAR MEDICATION
WAS ORDERED.
Q. WERE YOU ADVISING ANYBODY THAT YOU WERE PRESCRIBEING
Mk. SUNDY?
AL T DON'T FOLUSWw YOUR QUESTION.
o
COLEMAN
GED YOU ADVISE ANYSOOY THAT YOU WERE PRESCRIBING
THE ORUGS FOR MR. BUNOY?
A. THE NURSE AND MR. SUNY.
Q. OG YOU KNGW TF MR. 3UNOYS ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE YOU WERE
PRESCRIBING THE DRUGS?
A. T AM NOT AWARE. ~
Q. WHAT IS THE AFFECT OF ATIVAN ON A PERSON?
A. ATIVAN AS WE TALKED ABOUT. IS INDICATED FOR SYMPTOMS
OF ANXIETY, AND TT WILL RELIEVE ANXIETY IN MOST CASES.
QO. BY 3OING THAT WHAT DOES IT HAVE CN THE BODY?
A. LT'S & MILD TRANGUT
Q. NOW YOUR NOTE FOR JUNE THE FIRST, 1979, WHY DON'T YOu
INTERPRET THAT FOR ME, TELL ME WHAT WAS FOUND AND WHAT YOu
>
"OP, i HAVE A REFERENCE TO
SEEING & NOTE THAT PREVIOUS DAY,
iui
ITHER NURSES NOTE OR
PATIENTS, NOTE I AM NOT SURE WHICH.
Q. SO AHEAD? .
A. AND AT THAT TIME-HE WAS DISPLAYING FOUR PLUS ANXIETY.
c. TOP OF YOUR SCALE?
A. THAT'S CC
oO. WHAT ELSE?
A. HE APPEARED DISPARIFOL AND SLIGHTLY DEPRESSED. MY
ASSESSMENT AY THAT TIME WAS AGITATED DEFRESSION.
Q. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
MACALUSG ~ CROSS - COLEMAN
373
iC 7 LAL THAT MEANS HE WAS EXTREMELY AGITATED WITH SYMPTOMS OF
2 | DEPRESSION, AND ROM THAT I INDICATED HE WAS SLIGHTLY
3 | DEPRESSED.
a THE PLAN OS ACTION AT THAT TIME, THE OTHER NOTE
F 5 | WAS TO STOP THE ATIVAN AND TO INSTITUTE LIMBUTROL.
8 | o. WHAT 13 THAT INOICATIGNS FOR THAT DRUG?
a 1A. THE INDICATIONS OF LIMBITROL ARE BOTH FOR CONDITIONS
.
E 3 | OF AGITATION, ANXISTY. ITH SYMPTOMS OF CEORESSION.
r a | o. NOW T© VOU WERE TRYING TO FIND A NURSES NOTE FOR MAY
" 30, MAY 2°87 ANO GUNE FIRST?
y tt pa. } HAVE IT
nm 12 | 0 20 YOU HAVE THOSE?
RK 12 A YES
_ oO. NOW YOUR
*5 -) YOUR ENTRY FOR JUNE THE FIRST
C “6 PREVIOUS DATE. 13 THAT CORRECT?
17 4. T AM NOT SURE I7 WAS THE PREVIOUS DAY OR THAT DAY.
°8 Q. IN ANY €VENT, “HE ; REFERS TO MR.
E 79° | BUNDY “ASKING TO SEE THE NURSE. RE WAS DEPRESSED AND NEEDED =~
G 20 -| TO TALK with SOMEONE.- I5 -
21 A. ON THE NURGES NOTES THAT SM LOOKING AT ON FIVE
22 THIRTY ONE, 13 THAT YCURS. 7
23 Cc. TWELVE NOON?
ia ay I P.M AAWE THe TWELVE NOCN ©
ce G YOU 4&RE TO LATE
MACALUSO - CROSS - COLEMAN
uU NOW
2 REFERRING TO, AND YOU SEE
{ 3 ENTRY?
i i
| 4 A YES. £ DO.
ao
AND HE'S COMPLAINING OF DESRESSICN AND WANTING TOC TALK
WITH SOMEONE; 1S THAT CORRECT?
ce
Oo. AND RE WAS REFERRED TO YOU, { 3ELIEVE YOU SAW HIM THE
NEXT DAY; IS THAT CORRECT?
10 AL ANHATEVER THE RECORD INDICATES.
|
a 14 Q. THAT’ WHAT YOUR NOTE INDICATES? _
E 42 A SIX ONE
~ 73 QO. NOW ON 31M ONE, MR. BUNDY WAS ALSO PLACED ON SUICIDE
[ Th WAT Or SE OTREAT CORRECT?
15 A. candied
e
ao
“
S
com
REFERENCE TO THAT?
a
>
<
m
ao
“8 Q. “HEN LET ME ASK YOU NOW TO “URN TC YOUR NOTES FOR SIX
baa
®
m
ra)
x
~t
JUNE EIGHT. AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY SAY
ie
o
we
m
oO
>
c
a
io)
-
i
&
z
{
7
ta
Qo
MY NOTES ¢
TATE SLIGHTLY BETTER, THERE'S A OATE HERE.
uw
Th
ie)
O
S
3
a
o
AM TALKING ASQUT SIX
a
a
wo
“F
MACKLUBE = ORCES =
AY YES, 1 AM READING FROM THAT.
Q. OKAY. SLIGHTLY BETTER TRAN DASH DATE SIX SIK '79, 7
TAKE THAT WHE T WAS INDICATING HE WAS SETTER AS OF SIX
SIM. GIMSITROL KAS NO ASFECT ON EXAM TWO PLUS ANKIE7Y.
FOUR PLUS REPRESSED ANGER, ARIFOL. MY ASSESSMENT OR
WORKING CIAGNOSIS AT THAT TIME WAS AGITATED DEORESSION,
SITUATIONAL 4NXIETY. MY PLAN OF ACTION AT THAT TIME WAS
PSYCHIATRIC CONSULTATION FOR ANY 23YCHOTROPIC DRUGS. HE WAS
GIVEN CSLORG-HYDRATE ONLY UNTIL PSYCHIATRIC CONSULTATION
QO. AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU OBTAINED THE PSYCHIATRIC
CONSULTATION?
a. iT WAS ORDERED THAT DAY. {T DON'T RECALL WHEN IT WAS
Q. Oo YOU KNOW TF I7 OCCURRED?
A. 1 DON’T RECALL, SIR.
°. DG YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO i7 IN YOUR NOTES?
FT WAS ORDERED ON THI =
Qo. BUT RE'S NOTHING IN YOUR ES TO INDICATE THAT
OCCURRED?
A. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
Oo. AND YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER 37
OCCURRED?
A, 7 DON’T RECALL.
o. BUT YOU OLD THINK TT WAS
- CROSS -
| 322
i
| C ae IT WAS ORDERED ON SIX EIGHT.
| 2 |. LET ME ASX YOU TO LOOK AT YOUR MEDICATION
|
( 2 | ADMINISTRATION RECORDS.
4 1 DON'T <NOW fF THAT'S INCLUDES iN YOUR FILE?
e 5 1A 1 DON’T THINK IT iS
p 5 | Q. NOW DOCTOR, TAKING A LOOK AT THAT RECORD, COULD You
7 TELL ME DURING THE MONTH OF MAY HOW FREQUENTLY MR. BUNDY WAS
8 RECEIVING ATIVAN, OR WAS HE ON LIMBITROL?
¢ A. WELL, IN MAY IT WAS ATIVAN.
70 Qo. AND HOW iN MAY?
K 4 A. FROM THE 14TH OF M4&Y HE WAS RECEIVING IT, ONE TABLE™ -
“2 AT NIGHT. THEN ON
FARTING ON THE 28TH OF MAY HE WAS
oF
13. | RECEIVING ONE MILL GRAM SURING THE MORNING.
L sad. 1S THAT MORE OR .£33?
15 A. THE RECORDS DON'T INOICATE WHETHER THE MEDICATION AT
16 NIGHT~~
ee “7 Q. TAKE A LOOK AT THE NURSES NOTE FOR MAY 25TH.
18 A YES, 1 SEE 17
9 0 WHAT DOES THAT INDICATE?
20 A. LT STATES CHART REVIEWED, ATIVAN OR INCREASE ATIVAN TN
21 THE MORNING DURING THE WEEK.
22 oO. SO THAT ON MAY 258 THE MILL GRAM WAS INCREASED IN THE
23 ORUG; [3 THAT CORRECT?
a4 4, ITT APPEARS "HOUGH FROM MAY TWENTY
25 IN THE MORNING.
MACALUSO = CROSS - COLEMAN
| 523
C 1 1 8, AND THAT CONTINUED THROUGH WHAT?
| 2, A. THAT WAS STOPPED ON JUNE TRE FIRS7.
| 3 10. ON MAY 3187 HE WAS TAKING THE DRUG IN "HE MORNING; IS
a THAT CORRECT. TWO MILLIGRAMS?
5 | A.
c 8 | ©. AND SAN YOU TELL ME HOW LONG HE CONTINUED TO RECEIVE
7 | DRUGS FOR ANXIETY OR DEPRESSION IN THE MONTH OF JUNE?
ig 2 | A. SLORO-HYDRATE, 1 AM SORRY, LIMBITROL WAS STARTED FROM
: JUNE SECOND, AND GIVEN THROUGH THE FOURTH, AND THEN
9 | stopeeo
1 | 9. AND HE WAS “AKEN OFF AT THAT TIME SECAUSE IT WAS
; 12 | HAVING NO AFFECT: 18 THAT CORRECT?
kk 3 | AL YES. THE 2SYORIATRIC CONSULTATION WAS ORDERED.
“6 |. | Now BocTeR. vou a: PERFORM 4 PSYCHIATRIC
18 | EVALUATION 9F “MR. FUNDY, 91D YOU?
C 16 | AL NG, f DIDNT,
b ; 17 | Q. 30 YOU WOULD HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER HE WAS SUFFERING
ce | FROM ANY MENTAL ILuN YOU WERE PRESCRIBEING
E “9 | THESE ORUGS., WOULD Your
t 20 | &. NO. 1 WOULENT™ Say THAT. T HAD MY DIAGNOSIS AT THE
21 | TIME. FROM my aS { INDICATED IN MY NOTES, He
6 22 | HAD NO GROSS SYM7TOvS OF PSYCHOSIS. _
t
e 23 RECORD THAT HIS
Him TO O€AL WITH
o
13
MACALUEC ~ CROSS - COLEMAN
SPECIFIC PROBLEMS THAT
A. AND INTERACTION WITH THE NURSE WHO WOULD SEE HIM OUIT
OFTEN.
Q. YOU DID NO HISTCRY ON HIM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
A. I DIC AN EVALUATION EACH TIME I SAW HIM.
Q. EVALUATION, YOU ASKED MR. BUNDY HOW ARE YOU DOING. HO
00 YOU FEEL?
A. AS ¢
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
@Y MR..MENGER: 9 —
Q. VERY 3RIZ® REDIRECT, YOUR HONCR.
DOCTOR MACALUSO, MR. COLEMAN ASKED YOU ABOUT NOTE
PAREO CN MAY 3187.
AND THE NOTE IN ouESTION WAS ONE OF THE DEFENDANT
COMPLAINING OF DEPRESSION AND WANTING TC SPEAK TO SOMEONE.
DO YOU REMEMSER HIM SAYING THAT?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. AS A PHYSICIAN ANDO A PATIENT COMES =SRWARD AND
COMPLAINS OF & SYMPTGM SUGH 4S DEPRESSION, AND WANTS TO
SPEAK TO SOMEONE, 90 YOU INTERPRET THAT AS A DESIRE TO.HELS
YOURSEL® ON THE PATIENTS DART.
MR. MENSER: “HarT’sS alu.
W
S$
MACALUSD ~ CROSS - COLEMAN
C ‘ THE COURT: ANY REOROSS?
2 MR. COLEMAN: NC.
f 2 THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR. YOU MAY STEP Down.
a CALL YOLIR NEXT WITNESS.
s
E 5 MR. MENS
NEXT WITNESS WE HAVE, YOUR HONGR.
6 STATE WOULD CALL JAMES SEWELL TO THE STAND.
o
ra
JAMES D, SEWELL,
HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN,
FOLLOWS:
OIRECT ExXA
BY MR. MENSER
9 MR. SEWELL, HOW AR
A. CHIEF OF POLICE FO
Q.
A.
MANAGEMENT PLANNING FROM
PRIOR TO THAT
POSITION IN THE FLORIOA
FROM 1972 THROUGH 1986 1
UTENANT CF T
A. im73
& AGE
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS AN
THE BOARD OF REGIONS AT
TALLAHASSEE. _ .
G. COULD you SRIEFLY
A. 7 HOLD A BACHELOR,
FLORIDA
T RECEIVED abv
WAS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS
MINATION.
RE PRESENTLY EMPLOYED?
R CITY OF GULF PORT.
1982 THROUGH
I WAS SPECIAL AGENT IN A MANAGEMENT
DESARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND
WAS AN OFFICER ADVANCING TO THE
ITY POLICE
NCY THAT'S CHARGED WITH THE LAW
D ALL PROPERTY UNGER THE CONTROL OF
THE FLORIOA STATE UNIVERSITY IN
TELL US YCUR EDUCATION AND TRAINING?
MASTERS AND PHD IN CRIMINOLOGY AT
ANCE TRAINING &7 THE F B I NATIONAL
it
C 1 ACADEMY, AND I HAVE BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF TRAINING
i
COURSES IN VAR Y OF POLICE AREAS INCLUOING CRISES
3 INTERVENTION, MANAGEMENT, CRIMINAL PROFILE AND NUMBER OF
a | OTHERS.
L s lo. MAVE YOU WRITTEN ANY PUBLICATIONS OR CONE ANY
p 6 | TEACHING? : .
. a1 a. YES. T AM AN ADJUNCT MEMBER OF THE SLORIOA STATE
[ @ | UNIVERSITY SINCE 1978. WHILE I WAS STILL IN TALLAH Lot
9 TAUGHT A NUMBER OF TRAINING FACILITIES. INCLU
10 HIGHWAY PATROL ACADEMY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
v1 ENFORCEMEN™ ACADEMY, FLORIDA MARINE PATROL ACADEMY, SEVERAL
12 LOCAL TRAINING + \ vO I PUBLISHED SOMEPLACE AROUND
13 TWENTY ART OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN LAW
14 ENFORCEMENT
15 Q. OLD ANY GF THOSE HAVE TO SC WITH MENTAL HEALTH OR
HAD TO DO WITH CRISES INTERVENTION AND
18 MENTAL HEALTH.
“3 Q. WHILE YOU
EMPLOYED AT F 3 U 31D YOU HAVE A
2c PARTICULAR SUPERVISORY POSITION?
24 a. YES, SiR... AMONG MY OTHER RESPONSASIL:
22 ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF. | SUPERVISED THE-SUPPOR™-S
ra
B
<
o
m
wo
{ 4YAD RESPONSIBSICI™Y FOR THE CRISES
28 2. iS THE CRISES MANAGEMENT UNIT A CART OF A MENTAL
C + | HEALTH UNIT?
8
>
YES. I7'S A
@
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED FLORIDA STATE
z
<
wm
rod
rr)
4
PA
©
a
a
Mt
1
4 WAS COMPRISED OF THE TIME I SUSERVISED IT OF APSROXIMATELY
E 5 TEN DETECTIVES AND SOMEPLACE AROUND FIFTEEN DOCTORAL LEVEL
f 6 AND POST DOCTORAL LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS~.
7 Q. WHAT KINDS OF CASES DID YOU HANDLE THAT?
oy
wo
4. WE HANDLED ANY KINDS OF MAJOR MENTAL HEALTH CRISES
9 INTERVENTION IN THAT RANGE ALL THE WAY FROM STUDENTS WHO ARE
70 DISTURBED ABOUT GRADES AND DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO ANDO
an
RAN DISTRAUGHT -DOWN RESIGENCE kKALLS, TO STUDENTS WITH RIFLE
Ww
12 WHO INTENDED TO PLACE SNIPER SIRE AT THE STATIUM AT BY FS
13 U.
14 o. DiS THIS INCLUDE WHAT ARE CALLED SAKER ACT CASES?
15 A. YES, SIR.. CURING THE TIME THAT I WAS THERE, IN FOUR
16 YEARS WE HANOLED APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN CASES.
17 OF THOSE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN. SIXTY FIVE WERE INVOLVED THE
18 ADMISSION OF STUCENTS OR OTHER PEOPLE IN CAMPUS, UNDER
49 FLORICA MENTAL HEALTH ACT, SAKER ACT.
20 QO. COULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT A SAKER ACT PROCEEDING
ai 18? . - - - a
22 A. THE FLORIDA MENTAL HEALTH ACT APPLIES TO LAW
f 23 ENFORCEMENT, IS PRIMARILY EMERGENCY ACT "HAT ALLGWS US TO
4 TAKE INTO DY WHO eALLS UNDER THE SREA OF REING
| ft A DANGER TD
IN PARTIC
- OIREOT - %
| 529
C * | APPLIES THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO SHOW BEHAVIORAL SIGNS
| 2 | OF MENTAL HEALTH DISTURBANCE.
a 3 | Q@. IN THE COURSE OF HANDLING THESE CASES, WERE YOU
4 | ACTUALLY ABLE TO C8SERVE THE SUBJECTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS?
aq 5 | A YES, SIR WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN TAKING CUSTODY
6 MOST SIXTY FIVE WHO DID UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT.
sole. DID YOU DEVELOP ANY PARTICULAR ABILITY TO DETERMINE
f 2 | AFETHER CR NOT SOMEONE WAS DERANGED, INTOXICATED OR MENTALLY
c 2 | sBLE2 BO — ee
rota. AS WELL AS THE LAYMEN CAN, I THINK 8SCAUSE OF THE
é +1 | EXPOSURE PARTICULARLY FROM MY PARTNER AND MYSELF,
. no fa. HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED IN COURT OF LAW BEFORE?
C "3 1 AL YES, SIR. PROBABLY ABOUT TWO DOZEN TIMES DURING THGE
| 2) COURSE OF YY CAREER
is 1a WHAT ) OF CASES WERE THOSE?
E 16 | aA. ALL THE WAY FROM MISDAMEANORS 79 CAPITAL FELONIES.
4 17°10. HOW ABOUT DEPOSITIONS, DEPOSITICNS EVER TAKEN?
tao aA. NUMEROUS TIMES. -
E ra | o. WHO TOOK TH ALWAYS LAW OR WAS THERE A MIXTURE?
4 ao | A. AT LEAST ONE OCCASION IT WAS A LAYMEN. IN ALL THE
21 | OTHER CASES 178 TAKEN BY ATTORNEYS.
i 22 | Oo. IN THE COURSE OF YOUR EXPERIENCES HAVE YOU SEEN ABLE
E 23 LET'S SAY WHAT KIND OF ATTORNEY
7 24 NCBO HE 137
: 28 PERSONS ALL THE WAY FROM
pe
a
a
oy
Pay
FRESHLY GRADUA LAW STUDENTS THROUGH PEOPLE THAT {
CONSIDER SOME GF THE BEST TRIAL ATTORNEYS IN THE SOUTH
EAST.
SO Tf HAVE HAD A WIDE VARIETY OF EXPERIENCE AND I
THINK BASED ON THAT YOU CAN JUDGE TYPE GF ATTORNEY YOUR
FACING.
Q. O10 THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOUR DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN
IN THE CASE OF STATE VERSUS THEODORE ROSERT BUNDY?
COUNTY JAIL.
Q. WHO TOOK TON?
A. THEODORE ROSERT BUNDY
Q. SAN YOU IDENTIFY HIM?
AY AT THE TABLE THERE IN THE SLUE AND WHITE GAIRT.
oO. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE MR. BUNDYS PERFORMANCE DURING THAT
DEPOSITION?
AL THE DESOSITION CENTERED AROUND AN INVESTIGATION INTO
THE PURCHASE OF 4 WEAPON IN JACKSONVILLE WE BELIEVED WAS
USED IN THE KIMBERLY TEACH MURDER. OURING THE TIME "MERE
WAS EVIDENCE IN COURT, WE SHOWED THAT A VAN HAD SEEN STOLEN
FROM THE F SU CAMPUS, SRIVEN TO JACKSONVILLE, AND "HEN Sack
BY WAY OF LAKE CITY. THE VAN WAS LATER DROPPED OF© iN
TALLAHASSEE.
DURING THE COURSE OF
fey
UR RECOVERY OF THE VAN, WE
IN I7 AN ORANGE LAGLE MARKED GREEN ACRES. AFTER AN
PRE
SE
ry
me rs
TR
os)
10
EXTENSIVE SEARCH OF ALL THE GREEN ACRES STORES IN FLORIDA,
WE LOCATED A STORE IN JACKSONVILLE WHICH CARRIED AN ORANGE
LABLE. WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY 4S A RESULT A KNIFE THAT
WAS PURCHASED THERE. THE ONLY ITEMS PURCHASE AT THAT
PURCHASE PRICE AND USING THAT LASLE
SURING THE DEPOSITION THE LINE OF QUESTIONING
CENTERED AROUND SEVERAL ITEMS.
. ABOUT THE METHOD WE USED TCO LOCATE THE
LABLE.
SECONDS, WHAT WE DID WAS WE FOUNO [7 IN PARTICULAR
THE KINDS OF INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES USED 7O CONFIRM THAT
IT WAS A KNIFE, QONFIRM THAT IT WAS OFF OF
LABLE MAKER
AT GREEN ACRES SPORTING GOOD STORE, AND 7C
TQ THAT WITH THE INFORMATION
MR. BUNDY
CAREFULLY, IN LOGICAL
SEEMED TO UNODERSTANO WHAT THE EVIDENCE MEANT. ON AT LEAST
ONE OCCASION. IN DISCUSSING WHAT WE
WHO BOUGHT THE XNIFE, “MR. BUNDY CALLED ATTENTION TO WHAT
LATER BECAME A SHORTCOMING IN MY INVESTIGATIVE TECHNISUE,
AND HE PICKED IT UP DUICKER THEN I OLD.
SO I THINK THAT HE UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE
OGING. ANO T FELT £ 4&3 BEING CHALLENGED 3Y & FAIRLY
ut
1
oO
ATTORNEYS?
A.
ATTORN
SOME O
(
iow
EY.
F
CULO
HIM ON YOUR SCALE REGARDING
RATE HIM WELL ABOVE THE NORMAL BEGINNING
RE DIDN'T HAVE THE TRIAL EXPERIENCE LIKE SOME OF
THE ATTORNEYS [ HAVE HAD KAD, BUT HE RANKED WELL
ABOVE THE NORMAL ENTRY LEVEL PUBLIC DEFENDER OR STATE
ATTORN
Q.
bIe Yo
EY.
uoD
OR INTOXICATION?
A.
Q.
YOU HAVE AN
NC,
BOW
NOT
REAL RAPID SPEACH?
I
oid
YES,
ANS
ALT
SIR.
TECT MR.
9]
PON YOUR ©
PERIENCE IN THE MENTAL HEALTH AREA,
BUNDY'S ANY SIGNS OF MENTAL INCOMPETANCE
TD NOT.
YOU NOTE ANY MADE UP WORDS, CONCOCTED WORDS?
SIR,
ABOU
AT A
You
WHO
HOUGH
COURTROOM?
DID NOT.
T RHYMING
‘
Lh
LATER TE
SPEECH?
DURING THE DEPOSITIONS.
DON'T REMEMBER THAT IN PARTICULAR, NO, SIR.
IN THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE?
QUESTIONED YOU AT THAT TIME?
vol
NERE
GPPORTUNTTY
NED BY MR. AFRICANO DID.
SUNDY IN THE
HE WAS SEATED AT THE DEFENSE TABLE.
a
o
Oo. WOULD YOU TO THE COURT WEKAT YOU SAW?
A. NOTHING PARTICULARLY OUT OF THE ORDINARY. EXCEPT AT
ONE POINT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ASOUT A STATEMENT THAT
HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM OUR WITNESS MR. FARRAT. ANO AS I 8EST
RECA.L MR. SUNDY W4S INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION AT COUNSEL
TABLE, SUT { SOULON'T * OF * have HEARD ANYTHING THAT WAS
GOING ON.
Q. DID HE APPEAR TO YOU To BE DAY DREAMING OR READING
MAGAZINES?
A. NO, SIR. HE APPEARED TO BE WATCHING THE TESTIMONY.
Q. YOU BION'T SEE HIM HOLDING UP A MANILLA FILE AND
READING OURING YOUR TESTIMONY? —
A. NO. NOT THAT'S I RECALL.
MR. MENSER: I SAVE NOTHING FURTHER.
CROSS EXAM
SY MR. SANDAGE:
Q. _ MR. SEWELL, GOOD AFTERNOON. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS
FOR YOU.
TD YOU HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH MR. 3UNDY ®RIOR TO
THE DEPOSITION THAT HE TOOK OF You?
WITH MR. SUNDY'S ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AT COURT, AND DURING THE DEPOSITION, BUT
T DIDN'T HAVE PERSONAL CONTACT 3EFORE.
3. NOTHING DRIOR "O TRE DEPOSITION?
A. NOT THAT I RECALL.
SEWELL ~ DIRECT - MENSER
C . om HOW LONG CID THAT DEPOSITION LAST?
| 2 A. PROBABLY ABOUT FORTY FIVE MINUTES, SETWEEN THIRTY ANO
( 3 FORTY FIVE MINUTES.
4 QO. AND THEN YOU SAW HIM AGAIN AT TRIAL?
5 Ay SAW HIM SEVERAL OCCASIONS IN COURT. SAW RIM AT TRIAL,
o
SAW HIM AT THE PLEA BARGAIN SESSION, AND IF I RECALL i
7 APPEARED ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY, AND
w
MR, SUNDY IF <t RECALL CORRECTLY WAS ALSO AT THAT HEARING.
OID YOU EVER SEE HIM IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT BESIDES A
co)
re
©
°
me) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
=
4 A. NOT THAT I RECALL.
12 Q. YOU SAID THAT YOU OBSERVED HIM HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH
DOF
1S HIS ATTORNEY AT TRIAL, MR. AFRICANS.
“4 DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE
{
on
igs 15 ABOUT?
16 A. NO, COULON'T TEL
4 17 MR. GA&NDAGE: THAT'S ALL I 44Vve.
8
19 YOUR HONOR.
vou GRE EXCUSED. WE wil.
TAKE A "EN MINUTE RECESS.
[se]
1
ao
to
.
f.
i}
t
no
a
