Bundy - litigation, 1982-1983, 1986-1989, Undated

( LEWIS - CROSS - MEGINNIS
[ 273

1 NEVER HEARD OF THIS BEING DONE IN THE PAST, SO THAT YOU KNOW

| 2 EVERY EFFORT WOULD BE MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE PERSONS

: 3 SITUATION WITHOUT TALKING DIRECTLY, I DON'T THINK A JUDGE
Pe 4 WOULD TALK TO ME IF I WERE TO ASK, PARTICULARLY CASES ARE
E 5 STILL PENDING, AND WHAT THE JUDGE DID IS STILL PENDING, I
[ 6 THINK THAT THEY WOULD THINK I WAS BAZAAR IF I DID THAT.

7 Q. LET ME ASK YOU THIS: ASSUMING THAT A JUDGE WOULD HAVE

8 | TALKED TO YOU, WOULD HE NOT ALSO, ONE PRESIDED IN THE TRIAL, ||
9 ] BE IN A VERY FINE POSITION TO JUDGE THE DEMEANOR OF THE
10 | ACCUSED AT TRIAL? -

11 A. NOT NECESSARILY. YOU KNOW, JUDGES HAVE, YOU KNOW,

~ 12 COMPETENCE IN CERTAIN AREAS, AND THEY ARE, JUDGES ARE NOT

13 PSYCHIATRIST OR PSYCHOLOGISTS, AND THEY WOULD NOT

E 14 NECESSARILY BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE PSYCHIATRIC STATES OF
15 THE INDIVIDULE.

16 Q. T AM ASKING YOU, WOULD NOT THEY BE IN A POSITION TO

17 JUDGE AN OPINION AS TO AN ACCUSED DEMEANOR AT TRIAL?

18 A. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY GIVE AN OPINION, BUT IT WOULD, I -.*
19 THINK IT WOULD NOT BE A, IT WOULD NOT BARE ANY MORE WEIGHT
20 THEN THE OPINION OF ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THAT SAME TRIAL. I
21 DON'T THINK THAT A PSYCHIATRIST OR PSYCHOLOGIST WATCHING THE
22 DEMEANOR AT A TRIAL, MEANING MR. BUNDY NOW IS NOT SAYING A

23 WORD, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S THINKING, WHAT HE'S DOING,

24 WHETHER HE'S HAD MEDICATION, WHATEVER, SO THAT I THINK THAT

) 9 nN NO aN wrote wpe apne —t


24

25

LEWIS ~ CROSS - MEGINNIS
274

HIS COMPETENCY OR MENTAL STATUS, SIMPLY WATCHING HIM, NOR
COULD A JUDGE, I BELIEVE.

Q. WITH RESPECT TO COMPETENCY, THOUGH YOU HAVE ALREADY
GIVEN THE STANDARD WHICH WE HAVE REVIEWED, AND THAT IS
ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE, HIS ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND -THE
PROCEEDINGS.

A. HIS ABILITY, I THINK NOT JUST COMMUNICATE HIS ABILITY

TO COOPERATE WITH HIS COUNSEL.

Q. THAT WOULD GO HAND AND GLOVE WITH DEMEANOR, WOULD IT
NOT? _
A. NO.

Q. LET'S MOVE ON NOW.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE TRIALS THAT YOU
TALKED ABOUT, I BELIEVE IT'S THE HARRIES TRIAL.

IN HARRIES, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU FOUND, IN THAT
SITUATION, ALSO A BI-POLAR DISORDER?
A. THAT'S CORRECT. I DON'T HAVE THE DATA AT MY FINGER
TIPS, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HE CAME FROM A FAMILY
WHERE IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, THE FATHER ALSO SUFFERED FROM A
BI-POLAR MOOD DISORDER, AND $O DID MR. HARRIES, AND I WOULD
HAVE TO, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK OVER THE CASE AGAIN TO SEE
WHAT THE CRITERIA WAS. IT'S NOT THAT COMMON, BY THE WAY.
Q. IT ISN'T?

A. NO. BI-POLAR DISORDER IS, YOU KNOW, WELL, ESTIMATES

VARY, BUT MAYBE T OR 2 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION, I BELIEVE


LEWIS - CROSS - MEGINNIS
275

I COULD BE WRONG, MIGHT EXPECT TO SUFFER SUCH A DISORDER.
Q. 1 OR 2 PERCENT?
A. I THINK, I COULD BE MISTAKEN, IN TERMS OF UNI-POLAR

DEPRESSION, ABOUT-~ I THINK ABOUT FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE

5 | POPULATION, AND SOMETIME IN HIS OR HER LIFE WILL SUFFER FROM -
- 6 | THIS, BUT BI~POLAR IS THOSE TO BE LESS COMMON, ALTHOUGH
7 | PEOPLE ARE RECONSIDERING BECAUSE IN THIS COUNTY IT WAS OFTEN
8 | MISOIAGNOSED AS SCHIZOPHRENIA SO IT MIGHT BE COMMONOR. - -
9) Q,. THIS IS A NEW AREA, ISN'T IT, IN PSYCHIATRY? -
10, AW NO, IT'S NOT A NEW AREA. ,
Ex 11,1 0~. RECOGNITION IS? -
12 | A. NO. RECOGNITION IS BI~POLAR. KRAEPLIN DESCRIBED IN THE
13 | 19TH CENTURY, DESCRIBED IT, THE NAME 1S DIFFERENT, BUT MANIC
14 | DEPRESSIVE PSYCHOSIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED SINCE THE 1900TH
15 | CENTURY, POSSIBLY BEFORE.
16 | Q. LETS GO BACK THEN TO YOUR TESTIMONY THEN. DID YOU NOT
17 | SAY THAT SOME, AS PART OF THIS, CHARACTERIZED BY EXTREME
18 | DEPRESSION AND OTHER TIMES BY A EUPHORIA?
19 | A. YES, IT CAN BE. - -
20 | Q. THAT WOULD FIT, WOULD IT, FIT YOUR DEFINITION, WOULD
21 | IT NOT? Bo oe -
: 22 | A. NO. THAT IS THE DEFINITION IS-~ WHY I TRIED TO BE VERY
(w 23 | EXPLICIT USING D S M THREE CRITERIA, IT CANNOT BE, WE ALL
24 | HAVE UPS AND WE ALL HAVE DOWNS AND ALL FEEL TERRIFIC
25 SOMETIMES, AND WE DON'T FEEL SO GREAT OTHER TIMES. THAT'S

LEWIS - CROSS - MEGINNIS
276

WHY IN D S M THREE, IN ORDER TO MAKE A DIAGNOSIS OF A SEVERE
PSYCHOTIC DISTURBANCE OF BI~POLAR MOOD DISORDER YOU MUST
HAVE ALL OF THOSE, WELL NOT ALL, YOU KNOW THERE ARE LIKE
THREE OF CERTAIN KINDS OF FACTS, SYMPTOMS, MANIA, AND
CERTAIN SYMPTOMS OF DEPRESSION, BUT NO, JUST BEING UNHAPPY
AND HAPPY AND EUPHORIC WOULD DESCRIBE, I WOULD SAY, THE
GENERAL POPULATION.

OT —Now- FU RTHE ge IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU

ULD

SAID THAT I SHOULD ~

ADD THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM THIS DISORDER IN
BETWEEN THESE KINDS OF EPISODES CAN FUNCTION FAR BETTER AND —

BE FAR MORE IMPACT AND SO A PERSON IS CONSTANTLY OUT OF

TOUCH?
A. THAT*S CORRECT.
Q. SO THEREFORE IT SECOMES IMPORTANT, IF YOU HAVE THIS,

AND YOU'RE CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IS COMPETENT
TO STAND TRIAL, WHERE HE WAS AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME?

A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. AND QUITE FRANKLY, DOCTOR, THE ONLY THINK THAT YOU
HAVE TO GO ON, IS IT NOT TRUE, AS TO HOW HE WAS IN LAKE CITY
OR FROM NOTES SUPPLIED TO YOU BY COUNSEL?

A. NO. THAT IS NOT TRUE. I HAVE REVIEWED THE AFFIDAVIT
OF MR. MICHAUD, WHATEVER HE WROTE, TESTIFIED TO. I HAVE
REVIEWED THE TESTIMONY OF HIS ATTORNEYS IN THE TRIAL, AND I

HAVE HIS SENT TO TAPES THAT WERE MADE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THAT

TRIAL. SO THAT THERE ISA WEALTH OF DATA THAT DESCRIBES AIS


LEWIS - CROSS - MEGINNIS
277

COMPETENCE AND STATE OF MIND THAT HE WAS IN.
IT HAVE ALSO, YOU KNOW, VIEWED AT LEAST THE ENDS OF
THE TAPE WHERE HAD YOU HE GETS MARRIED, AND SO THAT, NO.
Q. WHICH TAPE IS: THIS?
A. THERE IS A TAPE THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS HIM SAY SOMETHING

LIKE DO YOU MARRY ME, I MARRY YOU, SOMETHING OF THAT SORT,

rN

24

25

BUT DEMONSTRATES HIS KIND OF INAPPROPRIATNESS, ANO HIS KIND
OF INVESTMENT IN THAT PARTICULAR EVENT, WITHOUT CARING
TERRIBLY MUCH ABOUT THE WESTERN LIVING OR DYING, WHAT HAVE

YOU, SO THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER MATERIAL THAT WENT INTO MY

ASSESSMENT .
Q. NOTES THOUGH ARE A PRIMARY SOURCE, ARE THEY NOT?
A. NO. THEY ARE NOT, THIS IS WHY IN ORDER TO TESTIFY HERE

TODAY, I FELT THAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO TALK IN
PERSON WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS I COULD, AND FAMILY MEMBERS,
AND TO REVIEW THE ACTUAL TESTIMONY OR AFFIDAVITS OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE IN TOUCH WITH MR. BUNDY'S DURING THE
COURSE OF THE TRIAL.

Q. THE WORK OF SOMEONE ELSE, THEIR AFFIDAVITS, YOU

REVIEWED THOSE, YOU REVIEWED SOME TYPES? ~ soo

A. YES.

Q. YOU LISTENED TO AUDIO TAPES? :
A. YES.

Q. BUT YOU YOURSELF WERE NOT THERE?

A. NO. I WAS NOT THERE.

LEWIS — CROSS - MEGINNIS
278

Q. LET'S GO TO THE THIRD FACTOR THAT I HAVE TALKED ABOUT
WITH RELATIONSHIP TO LOOKING AT COMPETENCY, AND HAD TO DO
WITH PRIOR MEDICAL TESTIMONY.

ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A. IT'S CORRECT, YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. -

Q. THAT'S CORRECT. I AM SORRY, THAT WAS NOT A WELL

Q. WAIT A MINUTE. I WILL ASK THE QUESTIONS IF YOU DON'T
MIND.

DID YOU KNOW THE LATE DOCTOR KLECKLEY?
A. YES. I KNOW OF THE LATE DOCTOR KLECKLEY WHO WROTE THE
MASK OF SANITY. I DID NOT KNOW HIM PERSONALLY.
Q. AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT HE PERFORMED AN EVALUATION ON
MR. BUNDY AS DID DOCTOR TINAY?
A. I AM AWARE THAT HE DID, HE INTERVIEWED HIM, I DON'T
RECALL, YOU WOULD HAVE THE, I HAVE SEEN HIS REPORT, I
BELIEVE, OR HIS TESTIMONY, I CAN'T RECALL, AND ALSO DOCTOR
TINAY'S, BUT I DON'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS A FULL EVALUATION
OR WHETHER THERE WERE JUST 1 OR 2 INTERVIEWS, gut I DO KNOW
HE SAW MR. BUNDY, AND I DO KNOW THAT DOCTOR TINAY SAW MR.
BUNDY.
Q. NOW GOING BACK TO YOUR REPORT, PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT

NUMBER THIRTY, PAGE FOUR, YOU HAVE DISCOUNTED DOCTOR

KLECKLEY"S OPINION, HAVEN*T YOU, IN YOUR REPORT.

( LEWIS - CROSS - MEGINNIS
| : 279
1 | Q. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, LAST TWO SENTENCES, THREE
| 2 | SENTENCES?
3 1A. NO. I DID NOT DISCOUNT THEIR TESTIMONY OR THEIR
4 | ASSESSMENT, BECAUSE DOCTOR TINAY DID FEEL THAT MR. BUNDY WAS
5 | INCOMPETENT AND THAT HE UNDERNEATH WAS FAR MORE DISTURBED
6 | THEN HIS GRANDIOS SORT OF APPEARANCE TO HAVE ONE BELIEVE,
7 | AND DOCTOR KLECKLEY, MY RECOLLECTION WAS BECAUSE I WROTE IT
E 8 | HEAR, MY GUESS IS EE WROTE IT WAS RIGHT IN HIS REPORT, OR
9 | HIS TESTIMONY, WAS EQUIVICAL IN THE ASSESSMENT AND I HAVE
E 10 | GIVEN THE BREVITY OF HIS ASSESSMENT WHICH SUGGESTS TO ME HE
fe 11 | HAD NOT DONE A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION.
12 I COMMENT THAT I DON'T THINK HE OBTAINED A
ie 13 | COMPREHENSIVE PICTURE OF THE CASE, BUT THEN AS I READ HIS
4 14 | TESTIMONY, HE ADMITTED THAT HE DID NOT GET A COMPREHENSIVE
’ 15 | PICTURE SO I DIDN'T DISCOUNT THEIR TESTIMONY.
16 | Q. YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVE YOU NOT?
17, | AL LONG TIME AGO, YES.
18 THE COURT: LET'S TAKE ABOUT A’ TEN MINUTE RECESS.
19 (RECESS TAKEN)- -
20
21 - ee _
22
23


|

_ 280
MR. MEGINNIS: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
BY MR. MEGINNIS:
Q. DOCTOR, PRIOR TO THE BREAK WE WERE DISCUSSING DR.
KLECKLEY AND AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE READ THE
TRANSCRIPT?
A. RIGHT.
Q. DO YOU REMEMBER THIS QUESTION WHEN YOU WERE ON
EXAMINATION?
_ "LET ME ASK YOU THIS RATHER LENGTHY QUESTION AND _
SRE IF YOU STILL AGREE WITH US WHETHER OR NOT HE'S COMPETENT
FOR TRIAL.
DO YOU FEEL THAT HE DOES HAVE SUFFICIENT PRESENT
ABILITY TO CONSULT WITH HIS LAWYER WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE
OF RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OR THAT HE HAS A RATIONAL AS WELL
AS FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM?"
DID YOU READ THAT QUESTION?
A. I READ HIS TESTIMONY. YOU'D HAVE TO SHOW IT TO ME IF
YOU WANT ME TO FOLLOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SAYING. I
WOULD HAVE TO SEE IT.
Q. I'M GOING TO BRING IT TO YOU IN JUST A MOMENT. AND
THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, "I FEEL THAT HE HAS, THERE IS No
REASON FOR ME TO FEEL THAT HE DOESN'T." 7
A. I SEE IT.

Q. NOW, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT DR. KLECKLEY WAS A

WELL RECOGNIZED PSYCHIATRIST, WAS HE NOT?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


|
|

281
A. YES, HE WAS WELL KNOWN FOR I THINK A BOOK HE HAD

WRITTEN, I THINK IN THE NINETEEN FORTIES.

3/ Q. AND SO THAT WOULD BE SOME THIRTY YEARS AT LEAST THAT
| 4| HE HAD BEEN DELVING INTO THIS FIELD, WOULDN'T IT?
: 5. AL I MUST ADMIT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HIS WORK SUBSEQUENT

. 6| 0 THE "MASK OF SANITY" SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO TELL ME
a 7| WHAT HE WAS DOING AFTER THAT, BUT HE DID, HE DID WRITE A
8| VERY IMPRESSIVE BOOK ABOUT HOW INDIVIDUALS WHO APPEAR JUST
9| TO BE ANTISOCIAL SUFFER FROM VERY SERIOUS PSYCHIATRIC
10 DISORDERS. THAT'S Wy HE CALLED IT THE “WHASK OF SANTEE — i
€ 11| HE FELT THAT THAT COVERED UP INSANITY.
e 12] Q. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS MORE IN POINT _
[- 13| OF TIME AS TO MR. BUNDY'S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL THAN i
l 14| YOUR EVALUATION?
15} A. WELL, SE SAW HIM, I UNDERSTAND, BRIEFLY THEN, SO THAT
£ 16] IN TERMS OF THE PERIOD OF TIME HE WAS THERE THEN. JI DIDN'T
17 KNOW MR. BUNDY THEN.
f 18| Q. IN OTHER WORDS, HIS EVALUATION WAS FOR PURPOSES OF
ER 19| DETERMINING COMPETENCY, WASN'T IT?
20) a. THAT WAS WHY HE WAS HIRED.
21/ 0. DOCTOR, IN YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING YOU INDICATED
22| THAT MR.. BUNDY AT ONE POINT IN TIME FLOODED HIS CELL? -
23| aA. I READ A NURSING REPORT TO THAT EFFECT.
24] O. WOULD YOU INFER THAT HE'S THE ONLY YOUNG MAN ABLE TO
25| FLOOD HIS CELL IN A PENAL INSTITUTION OR PLACE oF

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

282

INCARCERATION?

A. OF COURSE NOT.

Q. OF COURSE NOT?

A. OF COURSE NOT. HOW COULD I INFER THAT?

Q. OKAY. AND JUST A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS. I WANT TO

GO BACK AGAIN TO YOUR FINAL REPORT, I GUESS IT'S YOUR FINAL

WRITTEN REPORT, WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT VIRGINIA BRISCOLL.

A. WHAT DATE IS THIS?

Q. THIS IS YOUR FINAL REPORT, EXHIBIT THIRTY, AUGUST 19,
1987. ee
A. OKAY, I HAVE IT. RIGHT.

Q. AND ON PAGE FIVE YOU TALKED ABOUT VIRGINIA BRISCOLL

WHO YOU ALREADY TALKED ABOUT?
A. RIGHT.
Q. AND THIS MORNING IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU TALKED ABOUT

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. JULIA ~- WHO WAS JULIA?

A. JULIA IS A SISTER, I BELIEVE, OF MRS. BUNDY, OF LOUISE
BUNDY. -

Q. LOUISE BUNDY THEN WOULD BE MR. BUNDY'S MOTHER?

A. MR. BUNDY'S MOTHER, CORRECT. ~ ~
Q. AND JACK HOWELL IS WHOM?

A. PARDON ME? JACK HOWELL WAS MR. BUNDY'S FATHER'S

YOUNGER BROTHER WHO WAS PROFESSOR OF MUSIC AT UNIVERSITY OF

ARKANSAS.

Q. NOW, FINALLY, IN SO FAR AS THE FAMILY MEMBERS, IF I

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

283

1| UNDERSTOOD YOUR TESTIMONY CORRECTLY EARLIER THIS MORNING,
C 2| YOU INDICATED THAT YOU INTERVIEWED THEM AFTER YOU WROTE THIS
3| REPORT?
4| A. ‘THAT IS CORRECT.
5| Q. AND DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT SOME OF THESE
6| WERE TELEPHONIC INTERVIEWS?
7| A. HAT IS CORRECT. WHEN THEY -- TWO OF OF THE FAMILY
8| MEMBERS WERE ABLE TO COME. MRS. BUNDY WAS ABLE TO COME FROM
9) WASHINGTON, D.C. AND AUDREY, A SISTER OF HERS, WAS ABLE TO
10] COME FROM I THINK PHILADELPHIA, AND THOSE FAMILY MEMBERS
11| THAT WERE UNABLE TO COME I SPOKE WITH AT FAIR LENGTH ON THE
12| TELEPHONE, SOMETIMES ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION.
13| 9. WHEN YOU TALKED TO MR. BUNDY, DID YOU BELIEVE
14| EVERYTHING HE SAID?
us| a. NO.
16| Q. WILL MR. BUNDY LIE?
17| A. PARDON ME?
1s{ Q. . WILD MR. BUNDY LIE? ; ——
19| A. ON OCCASION, YES. -
20| Q. DID HE LIE TO YOU IN YOUR EVALUATION?
21] A. IN WHAT REGARD ARE YOU --
22] 9. I'M JUST WONDERING. YOU ASKED HIM A Question, DID HE
23| GIVE YOU A STATEMENT WHICH YOU FOUND TO BE UNTRUE?
24] A. I'M TRYING TO THINK,
25

WELL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I AM RECONSTRUCTING, BUT

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

284

HE, I CAN'T GIVE VERBATIM, BUT HE IMPLIED THAT HE FELT HE
WAS ABSOLUTELY FINE, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIM,
AND THAT HE DIDN'T SUFFER FROM ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL. AND
WHEN I SPOKE WITH HIM SUBSEQUENTLY HE DID TALK ABOUT THE
NEED TO COVER UP ANY INDICATION THAT HE MIGHT BE TROUBLED IN
ANY WAY SO THAT I THINK THAT THERE WAS CERTAINLY AN EFFORT
TO MINIMIZE HIS, ANY EVIDENCE OF PATHOLOGY. -

YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT, THERE WERE TIMES I

THOUGHT THAT HE MIGHT HAVE LIED. FOR EXAMPLE, HE SAID THAT

24

25

HIS GRANDFATHER WAS JUST ONLY WONDERFUL AND LOVING AND 7
GIVING TO HIM AND ALL OF HIS MEMORIES WERE ONLY VERY, VERY
POSITIVE. AND THEN I LEARNED FROM JUST ABOUT ALL -- FROM
ALL OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT I INTERVIEWED THAT HE WAS AN
EXTREMELY VIOLENT MAN. BUT I DON'T THINK MR. BUNDY WAS
LYING THEN, £ THINK THAT HE TRULY HAD BLOCKED THIS OUT.

BY AND LARGE, CERTAIN THINGS WHERE I THOUGHT WELL,
GEE, MAYBE HE'S JUST COVERING UP, I THINK HE PROBABLY
DOESN'T REMEMBER. ~
Q. TO THE EXTENT THAT HE WROTE HIM A LETTER, DID HE NOT,
WHEN HE WAS GOING BACK TO TEMPLE UNIVERSITY?

A. OH, INDEED.

Q. THERE WAS A BOND OR A LOVE THERE BETWEEN HIS SELF AND

HIS GRANDFATHER?
A. YES, THERE WAS CERTAINLY AN INTENSITY OF FEELING.

Q. AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU INTERVIEWED THAT WOULD

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

LEWIS-CROSS-MEGINNIS

285
| 1 REFUTE THAT WAS DONE BY TELEPHONE, WASN'T IT?
(6 2 A. PARDON ME? I BEG YOUR PARDON?
3 Q. SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GLEANED THAT WOULD
[ 4 REFUTE HIS BELIEF WAS GAINED BY TELEPHONE, WAS IT NOT?
‘a 5 A. NONE OF THE INFORMATION REFUTED HIS BELIEF. HIS

a

MEMORY WAS OF ONLY GOOD THINGS BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM AND A

~

LACK OF MEMORY FOR HIS VIOLENCE TOWARDS OTHER PEOPLE SO

THAT, YOU KNOW, AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE ONE WAY WITH ONE FAMILY

PS
co

——~—9-|MEMBER-AND~-THEN-FRIGHTENING -AND~-VIOLENT- AND-DISRUPTIVE-WITH ——~ -—

10 OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OR WITH ANIMALS OR WHAT HAVE YOU ARE.

11 THAT WAS NOT PARTICULARLY INCONSISTENT.

12|} Q. DO YOU KNOW A DR. JORGENSON?

13/ A. I BELIEVE I READ A REPORT OF DR. JORGENSON.

14] Q. DR. CARLISLE?

15) A. I BELIEVE I ALSO READ A REPORT OF HIS.

16| Q. WERE THESE REPORTS NOT OF AN EVALUATION OF MR. BUNDY

17 IN THE UTAH SITUATION?

18 A. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM TO LOOK AT THE DATES. THERE

4 19 WAS SO MUCH MATERIAL, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY, I THINK SO. DO
E 20 YOU WANT TO SHOW ME THEM?

re 21 MR. MEGINNIS: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MAY I
ki 22 APPROACH THE WITNESS?

|

\

f 23 BY MR. MEGINNIS:
24 Q. DO YOU HAVE THESE?

S -
| 25 A. I CAN'T FIND THEM. I'M SURE I LOOKED AT THEM.

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

a

foo)

24

25

286
Q. YOU HAVE SEEN THOSE?
A. YES, YES.
I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM IF YOU WANT TO ASK ME

ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.

Q. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU THE DATES THAT THESE WERE
DONE.

A. THIS SAYS MARCH 8, 1976. AND THIS SAYS DECEMBER 18,
1976.

Q. AND YOU REVIEWED THOSE IN THE COURSE OF YOUR
“gvALUATION OF MR. BUNDY? ~~~
A. YES, I DID.

Q. AND THESE WERE TAKEN, WERE THEY NOT, PRIOR IN TIME TO

THE LAKE CITY CASE, WERE THEY NOT?

A. YES.
Q. AND YOURS WAS NOT, CORRECT?
A. MINE, I DIDN'T DO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION, I DID A

PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION.

Q. WELL, YOU HAD SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL INPUT INTO IT, DIDN'T
YOU? YOU HAD SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL INPUT, YOU HAD OTHER PEOPLE
DOING SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL --

A. THAT'S TRUE.

Q. AND THAT WAS A MASTER'S STUDENT, WAS IT NOT, A
DOCTOR'S STUDENT WITH A MASTER'S DEGREE?

A. THAT IS CORRECT. ALSO, DR. ELLIS RICHARDSON PERFORMED

THE HALSTEAD-REITAN BATTERY NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS AND HE

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

287

IS A FACULTY MEMBER AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE.
Q. NOW, THESE PARTICULAR REPORTS INDICATE THAT MR. BUNDY
WAS NOT SUFFERING FROM ANY PSYCHOLOGICAL DISEASE, DO THEY
NOT?
A. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM. AS I SAID, I SAW THEM A
LONG TIME AGO.

WHAT STRIKES ME AS I GO THROUGH THIS, IT'S BEEN

AWHILE, IS HOW INACCURATE THIS REPORT OF DR. JORGENSON IS,

“WHICH I THINK IS PERHAPS WHY I DID NOT CITE IT AS SOMETHING |

THAT I BASED MY FINDINGS ON. THERE ARE JUST A SERIES OF
INACCURACIES AND A LACK OF DATA WHICH I'D BE GLAD TO GO
OVER.

WHY DON'T WE JUST ADDRESS THIS? CAN YOU GET A
COPY SO 1 CAN HAVE A COPY?
Q. YOU'VE GOT MY COPY. I'LL STAND RIGHT HERE, IF I MAY

BE PERMITTED TO DO SO?

A. THIS IS DR. JORGENSON'S REPORT. -

Q. AND WHERE IS DR. JORGENSON?

A. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE HE IS. : os

Q. WHAT DOES THE LETTERHEAD INDICATE?

aA. IT SAYS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. -

Q. AND YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM?

A. WELL, INDEED. HE SAYS THAT MR. BUNDY'S HOSTILITY Is

MILD IN NATURE, HE'S VERY INTELLECTUALLY EFFICIENT AND

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

aS

f

“7h ES

24

25

288
FLEXIBLE, HE HAS A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX,

AND HIS DIAGNOSIS AS A NORMAL PERSON, AND I SURE DO DISAGREE

WITH HIM.

Q. ALL RIGHT. MAY I HAVE THE OTHERS, PLEASE?
A. I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THAT. DO YOU WANT ME TO?
Q. WELL, I WANT TO JUST ASK YOU ONE THING.

I THINK NOT. I THINK THIS IS FINE. BUT THEY

DISAGREE WITH YOU, DO THEY NOT?

A. I_WOULD SAY SO. BUT PERHAPS ONE SHOULDN'T HOLD THEM _

TO THAT BECAUSE WERE THEY TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM, THEY MIGHT
RETHINK THAT. 7
Q. AND ALSO AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME THERE IS A REPORT OF
A MEDICAL EXAMINATION AT UTAH STATE PRISON. DID YOU REVIEW
THAT? +
A. IF YOU SHOW IT TO ME,

OKAY. YEAH. AT LEAST THIS RINGS A BELL BECAUSE
THERE WAS A FILM SHOWED THAT SHOWED A NON-UNION OF THE
CORONAL SUTURE AND I DID SEE THAT.
Q. AND IT ALSO SAYS, DOES IT NOT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF
INCREASED PRESSURE OR CALCIFICATION. THE CELLA IS

APPARENTLY NORMAL.

A. YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS?
Q. NO. I JUST WANTED YOU TO VERIFY THAT THIS IS IN THE
REPORT.

NOW, THIS MORNING YOU WERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT A

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

LEWIS-CROSS-MEGINNIS

289
SUICIDE WATCH IN THE CASE OF MR. BUNDY AND I THINK THAT IN
YOUR REPORT YOU IDENTIFIED AS JUNE 1, 1979. DO YOU RECALL
THAT?
A. YOU WOULD HAVE TO REFRESH MY MEMORY. THERE WERE SOME
NURSING NOTES THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT SUICIDE. I
THINK IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THAT HE REJECTED THE PLEA
THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A LIFE SENTENCE. IS THAT WHAT

YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THAT DAY?

Q. THANK YOU, DOCTOR. I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED MY NEXT
QUESTION. THAT WILL SAVE US SOME TIME. IT WAS THE DAY
AFTER THAT HE HAD REJECTED THE PLEA. THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH

TO RUIN A MAN'S DAY, WOULDN'T IT?

A. WAS IT THE DAY AFTER OR PERHAPS THE VERY DAY?
Q. DAY AFTER.
A. WELL, THERE WAS SOME PRIOR DATA TO THAT. FOR EXAMPLE,

THERE WAS IN THAT SAME REPORT I THINK, I THINK THAT WAS ON
THE 31ST OF THE MONTH, AND PRIOR TO THAT THERE WAS DATA THAT
HE HAD BEEN SAVING UP PILLS, THAT HE HAD TAKEN ENOUGH PILLS
SO THAT THEY DESCRIBE HIM AS BEING ATAXIC WHICH MEANS THAT
HE COULDN'T WALK STRAIGHT, WHICH USUALLY MEANS YOU CAN'T
THINK STRAIGHT EITHER, AND THAT ANTEDATED THAT EPISODE WHERE
THEY PUT HIM ON SUICIDE. : ; _

Q. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION?

A. I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE VERY SAME THING. TURN BACK A

PAGE OR TWO IN THAT, AND I THINK YOU'LL FIND IT.

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

290

| 1] a. I TAKE IT THEN YOU'RE REFERRING THEN TO PAGE THREE OF
(S 2| EXHIBIT THIRTY?
3] a. AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO SHOW ME IT, IT'S QUICKER THAN
| 4} LOOKING FOR IT. LET ME SEE.
E 5 NO, NO. I'M REFERRING TO THE ACTUAL RECORD TO
7 6| THAT, THE HOSPITAL RECORD WHERE THE NURSE SAYS THAT HE WAS
E 7| DEPRESSED, HE NEEDED SOMEBODY TO TALK TO, SHE WAS WORRIED
c 8| ABOUT SUICIDE. A PAGE OR TWO BEFORE THEN DOCUMENTS HIS
9 BEING MEDICATED WITH APPARENTLY TOO MUCH ATAVAN AND HIS
E 10! BEING ATAXIC AND UNABLE TO WALK STRAIGHT. = = =
r ll I BELIEVE THAT'S IT.
i 12] Q. THAT'S FINE. I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU THIS. THAT
[- 13 | WAS MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE THE LAKE CITY TRIAL, WASN'T IT?
[ a4] oa. YES, THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE LAKE CITY TRIAL.
ps 15 MR. MEGINNIS: THANK YOU DOCTOR. I HAVE NO
E 16 | FURTHER QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE IT.
ie 17 THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT?
7 18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION  —
q 19 | BY MR. COLEMAN:
20| Q. DR. LEWIS, DO YOU HAVE NOW A COPY OF THE NURSES! NOTES
21 | THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO I THINK IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PE 22] LAST LINE OF QUESTIONING? oe
23) a. YES, I DO.
; 24| Q. AND CAN YOU, USING THOSE NOTES, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU WERE
| ~ 25 | TESTIFYING TO? -

i

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

24

25

291
a
A. OKAY. PRIOR TO THE ENTRY THAT MR. MEGINNIS HAD CALLED
MY ATTENTION TO WHERE HE ASKED TO SEE THE NURSE BECAUSE HE
WAS DEPRESSED AND NEEDED TO TALK TO SOMEONE AND WHATEVER, HE
PRIOR TO THAT, THAT WAS 5-31-79, BUT ON 5-17-79 THERE IS A
NOTE THAT SAYS SERGEANT WADE WAS CONCERNED AND ASKED ME IF
MR. BUNDY WAS ON MEDICATION BECAUSE HE APPARENTLY HAD
UNSTEADY GATE WHEN LEAVING SLAMMER, I LIKE THAT, THIS P.M.

AND SERGEANT WADE, OFFICER WADE AND MYSELF ENTERED THE

SLAMMER AND FOUND ATAVAN TABLETS, TWO, STILL IN THE MEDICINE

CUP ON THE TOP OF WHATEVER IT WAS. MEDICATION TO BE GIVEN
TONIGHT.

SO IT'S INTERESTING THAT HE WAS ATAXIC THEN AND
ASSUMING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A -- WELL, WE KNOW THAT HE
DIDN'T HAVE INCREASED INTERCRANIAL PRESSURE, WHATEVER, BUT
ASSUMING THIS IS NOT SOMETHING LIKE A BRAIN TUMOR, THIS KIND
OF NOT BEING ABLE TO WALK STRAIGHT OR WHATEVER SUGGESTS THAT
HE HAD BEEN TAKING SOME KIND OF DRUGS OR MEDICATION AND
COULDN'T WALK STRAIGHT.

AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER NOTATION LATER THAT DAY
THAT HIS SPEECH IS SLURRED AND HIS PUPILS ARE DILATED AND
REACTIVE. AND HE SAYS HE ADMITS SAVING ATAVAN FROM LAST
NIGHT AND TAKE THE SAMB BEFORE NOON THAT DAY. SO, AND THEN
THEY MAKE A NOTE THERE TO OBSERVE CLOSELY.

- AND THEN THERE IS A NOTE THAT HE'S, LET'S SEE,

HE'S ALERT THE NEXT DAY. THEN THEY DECIDE TO INCREASE HIS

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

Pre

292

1 ATAVAN IN THE MORNING, THERE IS A PUZZLE, ON 5-25, SO
¢ 2 SOMETHING WAS CONCERNING THEM. THEY DON'T SAY WHAT IT WAS,

3 BUT ON 5-25, SHORTLY BEFORE THIS OTHER ENTRY, THEY GIVE HIM
4 MORE OF WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN WHAT CAUSED THE ATAXIA.

5 AND THEN IT'S SHORTLY THEREAFTER ON THE 31ST THAT
6 HE IS DEPRESSED AND THAT HE APPARENTLY ON 5-31-79 HAD TAKEN
7 THE MEDICATION IN THE MORNING AND, THOUGH HE WAS TOLD NOT TO
8 DO THAT, AND THEY WERE QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM. AND THEN
9 ON 6-1-79. SO HE'S DEPRESSED ON 5-31. I THOUGHT THAT WAS

10 THE DATE THAT HE ACTUALLY MADE TAR PLEA. T coun BE

ll MISTAKEN. OR I MEAN REJECTED THE PLEA. AND THEN ON 6-1-79
12 HE'S PLACED ON SUICIDE PRECAUTION.

- 13 SO AT LEAST FROM THESE DATA IT LOOKS AS IF HE WAS
14 INA DOWN AND PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM AND THEY WERE
15 CONCERNED ABOUT SUICIDE DURING THE WEEKS PRIOR TO HIS
16 REJECTING THE PLEA. AND CERTAINLY ON THE DAY AS WELL.

17 IT'S INTERESTING THAT THEY CONTINUED WITH THE

18 ATAVAN BECAUSE WITH A DEPRESSIVE PERSON, THINGS LIKE ATAVAN
19 OR VALIUM AND THIS KIND OF THING WILL INCREASE DEPRESSION,
20 SO IT'S ABOUT THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO WITH A DEPRESSED
21 INDIVIDUAL.

22 Q. NOW, DR. LEWIS, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLEA
23 AGREEMENT THAT MR. BUNDY REJECTED ON MAY 31, 1979 INVOLVED
24 THE CHARGES IN BOTH CASES?

25 A. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT IT WAS A NEGOTIATION

|

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

FOR BOTH THE CHI OMEGA AND THE LAKE CITY TRIAL.

Q. NOW, ALSO IN THE COURSE OF HIS CROSS EXAMINATION MR.
MEGINNIS SHOWED YOU A MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORT FROM THE
UTAH STATE PRISON AND YOU MADE REFERENCE TO AN ENTRY AND HE
DID NOT PERMIT YOU TO EXPLAIN IT AND I WOULD LIKE YOU AT
THIS TIME, IF YOU WOULD, TO EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE. I'LL
GIVE YOU THE REPORT.

A. I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.

THIS IS A SKULL X-RAY OF MR. BUNDY AND IT SHOWS

“SOME NON-UNION OF THE CORONAL SUTURE WHICH MEANS THAT MOST = |

OF OUR SKULLS DURING CHILDHOOD OSSIFY AND, YOU KNOW, BABIES
HAVE A LOT OF SOFT AREA BETWEEN BONES OF THE SKULL, BUT MOST
OF THEM, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME YOU'RE AN ADULT, THEY TEND TO
COME TOGETHER.

“an THIS CASE, FOR SOME REASON, THEY DID NOT.
HOWEVER, THE PERSON FEELS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF INCREASED
PRESSURE, WHICH I GUESS WORRIED ABOUT HYPOCEPHALUS OR 7
SOMETHING OF THIS KIND WHERE YOU SEE NON-UNION. AND
THEREFORE HE DOES NOT THINK THAT THIS IS SIGNIFICANT.
_ AND AS IT HAPPENS, WHEN I SAW THIS, I CONSULTED
WITH THE NEUROLOGIST WHO WAS WITH OUR TEAM, DR. PINCUS, AND
HE INDEED DID NOT THINK IT WAS SIGNIFICANT EITHER.
Q. NOW, DR. LEWIS, MR. MEGINNTS ALSO SHOWED YOU AND I

BELIEVE YOU READ A REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY GARY

JORGENSON THAT WAS DATED DECEMBER 18, 1976?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


294
A. CORRECT.
Q. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU TWO ADDITIONAL REPORTS, ONE
DATED JUNE 2, 1976 PREPARED BY DR. A.L. CARLISLE AND A
SECOND REPORT DATED MARCH 8, 1976 PREPARED BY EVAN LOUIS,
AND LET ME ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THESE.
A. I HAVE TO READ THEM THROUGH BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER
THEM.

I'VE LOST MY PENCIL. DO YOU HAVE A PENCIL OR

SOMETHING?
7 WHICH WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO LOOK AT FIRST?
Q. EITHER ONE.
A. OKAY. : :
Q. I'M INTERESTED IN THIS ASPECT OF IT AND THIS ASPECT OF
THAT ONE. |
A. OKAY. OKAY. I'VE READ THE PARAGRAPH THAT YOU WANTED
ME TO.
Q. WHAT DOES THAT REPORT INDICATE WITH RESPECT TO MR.
BUNDY'S COOPERATION WITH THE EVALUATION?
A. WELL, WHAT THE PSYCHOLOGIST SAYS IS THAT MR. BUNDY,

QUOTE, CONSISTENTLY ATTEMPTED TO DISGUISE HIS ATTITUDES AND
MOTIONS PRIMARILY BY RESPONDING IN SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE WAYS
RATHER THAN EXPRESSING HIS TRUE FEELINGS AND DENYING ANY
DEVIANT ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS OR WHATEVER.

AND THEN LATER ON IT SAYS THAT THIS WAS IN

CONGRUENCE WITH WHAT ELSE WAS KNOWN ABOUT HIM AND HE SAYS

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


oS

__SOMBTHING WAS WRONG OR DEVIANT, THAT IT WAS VERY, VERY — _

295

THAT OTHER TEST DATA STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT MR. BUNDY EXERTED
A SYSTEMATIC EFFORT TO PORTRAY HIMSELF IN A MANNER WHICH DID
NOT REVEAL HIS TRUE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS.

AND INDEED, I DID CONFRONT MR. BUNDY WITH THIS
KIND OF MATERIAL, I MENTIONED IT TO HIM BECAUSE I THINK
OTHER PEOPLE HAD COMMENTED ON IT TOO, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN,
AND HE SAID YES, HE HAS ALWAYS TRIED TO APPEAR PERFECTLY

NORMAL, THAT HE, ALTHOUGH HE HAS BEEN AWARE THAT PERHAPS

IMPORTANT TO HIM.

I THINK THAT HE WOULD ALMOST RATHER DIE THAN
APPEAR TO ANYBODY LESS THAN COMPETENT AND LESS THAN SANE.
Q. NOW, YOU ALSO REFERRED, YOU ALSO REFERRED IN THE CROSS
EXAMINATION TO AN AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN MICHAUD. LET ME SHOW
YOU A TRANSCRIPT OF THE DEPOSITION OF MR. MICHAUD THAT WAS
INTRODUCED IN THIS PROCEEDING YESTERDAY AND SEE IF YOU CAN
IDENTIFY IT,
A. YEAH. THAT'S MY WRITING ON THE TOP OF IT SO I CAN
IDENTIFY IT.
Q. IS THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO?
A. YES, IT IS. AND I SEE I HAVE MARKED A FEW PLACES AND
BENT UP A FEW PAGES. _ -
Q. NOW, DOCTOR, AT THE TIME THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED AN
AFFIDAVIT THAT MR. MEGINNIS CROSS EXAMINED YOU ABOUT THAT

WAS DATED IN SEPTEMBER, 1987, AND IT REFERS TO YOU HAVING

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

296

1 REVIEWED NOTES OF INTERVIEWS WITH MEMBERS OF MR. BUNDY'S

3 A. WOULD YOU PAUSE A MINUTE, LET ME SEE IF I HAVE IT.
4 MR. MEGINNIS: I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT BECAUSE I

2 FAMILY?
|
5 THINK THAT'S A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT. THE
'

6 | AFFIDAVIT SAYS THAT SHE REVIEWED NOTES OF COUNSEL OF MEMBERS
. 7 OF THE FAMILY. :

8 MR. COLEMAN: I AGREE. I WASN'T TRYING TO

9 MISCHARACTERIZE THAT.

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

REDIRECT EXAMINATION.

BY MR. COLEMAN:

3 | oO. MY OUESTION IS-~
ALA, 1 AM NOT SURE I HAVE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS
5 | DATE IS-- DO I HAVE A COPY OF IT OR CAN I HAVE THAT?

6 | oO. YOU CAN HAVE THAT. YOU HAVE SINCE INTERVIEWED EACH OF
7 | THOSE INDIVIDUALS; IS THAT CORRECT?

ela. LET ME CHECK. NO. I DID NOT INTERVIEW CAROL BOON, I
9 DIDN'T INTERVIEW, I WAS ABLE TO READ LETTER THAT SHE HAD
10 | WRITTEN, I FORGET TO WHOM IT WAS REGARDING HIS STATE OF

11 | MIND, I GUESS IT WAS WHEN HE WAS FIRST ARRESTED IN FLORIDA,
12 | BUT I HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED HER.

13 GUT THE OTHER PEOPLE THERE I HAVE INTERVIEWED.

14 | 0. DID THEIR INTERVIEWS CONFIRM THE NOTES THAT YOU HAD?
15 [| A. THEIR INTERVIEWS CONFIRMED THE NOTES I HAD, HOWEVER

16 | THEIR INTERVIEWS ELASORATED ON AN AND THEIR INTERVIEWS GAVE
17. | MATERIAL THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY NOT 8EEN KNOWN. FOR EXAMPLE,
18 | UNTIL I INTERVIEWED THEM, I WAS UNAWARE OF THE FACT THAT MR.
19 | BUNDY HAD ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, AS A VERY SMALL CHILD,
20 | TAKEN BUTCHER KNIVES AND KITCHEN KNIVES AND GONE UPSTAIRS TO
21 | HIS AUNTS ROOM AND HAD PICKED UP THE COVERS AND PUT THEM

22 | UNDER HER SHEETS AND STOOD THERE. —

23 AND I: DID NOT KNOW UNTIL I INTERVIEWED I GUESS IT
24 | WAS THE SAME AUNT, THAT HIS GRANDFATHER HAD BEEN SO CRUEL TO
25 | ANIMALS, THAT HE HAD KICKED THE DOG UNTIL THE DOGS HOWLED,


24

25

298
THAT HE HAD SWUNG CATS AROUND BY THE TAIL, AND SO THAT I WAS
VERY GLAD THAT I INTERVIEWED THEM BECAUSE I GOT A MUCH
RICHER PICTURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.
oO. I THINK IN YOUR CROSS EXAMINATION YOU REFERRED TO MR.
JACK HOWELL AS THE BROTHER OF MR. BUNDY'S FATHER. IS IT THE
BROTHER OF THE FATHER OR IS IT THE BROTHER OF THE
GRANDFATHER?
A. NO, I AM SORRY, IT'S A BROTHER OF SAM, BROTHER OF THE

GRANDFATHER.

MR. COLEMAN: THAT'S ALL I HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ANY RECROSS?

RECROSS EXAMINATION.

MR. MEGINNIS:
oO. JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION, AND THAT IS THAT WE WENT
FURTHER INTO THESE REPORTS OF DOCTORS CARLYLE JORGENSON, WE
HAVE ALREADY ALLUDED TO TINAY AND CLECKLEY AND LEWIS, AND AM
I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR REPORTS, WHICH WERE CLOSE IN TIME
To THE LATE LAKE CITY TRIAL, WERE WRONG AND YOU ARE RIGHT?
A. YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT IN A SINGLE STATEMENT, SECAUSE
THERE REPORTS ARE NOT, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T LUMP THEM
ALTOGETHER, DOCTOR TINAY, THERE WERE PARTS OF DOCTOR TINAY'S
REPORT THAT I THINK WERE PERCEPTIVE AND WERE ACCURATE. I
MAY DISAGREE WITH HIS CONCLUSION IF MR. BUNDY'S ACTED ONE
WAY HE WAS COMPETENT, HE WASN'T , BUT HE CERTAINLY PICKED UP

THE GRANDIOS INAPPROPRIATNESS, DOCTOR CLECKLEY MADE A KIND


24

25

299
OF TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT, SAID HE DID NOT KNOW ENOUGH A80UT
IT, I WOULD SAY THAT THE REPORT OF DOCTOR JOERGENSON, THAT
FIRST OF ALL, MAKES, ALLEGES TO GET A HISTORY, AND THAT HAS
NO HISTORY OF THE UPS AND DOWNS OF THIS MAN'S LIFE, AND
PRESENTS AS THOUGH HE JUST FLEW THROUGH COLLEGE, AND WENT TO
LAW SCHOOL, AND THAT THERE WERE NONE OF THESE VISITUDES AND

CONCLUDE THIS MAN IS PERFECTLY NORMAL, AND HAS NORMAL

RELATIONSHIPS WITH WOMAN, AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH

TEMPER OR AGRESSION. I THINK THAT IS GROSSLY INACCURATE.

Q. NEVERTHELESS, THEY ALL CONCLUDED THAT HE HAD NO REAL

MENTAL PROBLEMS, AND IN THERE EVALUATION WAS CLOSER IN TIME

TO MR.--
A. THEY OID NOT CONCLUDE THAT HE HAD MENTAL PROBLEMS.
QO. THEY CONCLUDED, IT'S CLEAR, IS IT NOT UNEQUIVOCAL,

THAT DOCTOR CLECKLEY SAID IN HIS FINAL ANALYSIS, THAT HE WAS
COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL?
A. THAT'S THAT HE CONCLUDED.

MR. MEGINNIS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU DOCTOR LEWIS. YOU ARE

EXCUSED.

=

R. COLEMAN: WE HAVE NO FURTHER WITNESSES, YOUR
HONOR. ~

WE DO HAVE, WE HAVE NO FURTHER WITNESSES.

MR. MEGINNIS: I TAKE IT THEN YOU REST?

MR. COLEMAN: IN LIGHT OF THE COURTS RULING, IN


24

25

PROBLEM WITH THAT.

300

LIGHT OF THE COURTS RULING EXCLUDING CERTAIN TESTIMONY, WE
REST. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TRANSCRIPTS, COPIES OF THE
TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PENSACOLA INTERVIEWS THAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ONES THAT WERE PUT INTO EVIDENCE, AND
THE STATE CAN REVIEW THEM.

MR. MEGINNIS: ARE THEY HERE?

MR. COLEMAN: YES.

MR. MEGINNIS: I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE ANY

THE COURT: AT ANY TIME YOU CAN PROCEED TO PUT ON
EVIDENCE.

MR. MEGINNIS: ALL RIGHT.

MR. YORK: WE HAVE A VERY BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT,
IF IT PLEASE THE THE COURT.

AND WE WILL WILL BE PREPARED TO CALL THREE
WITNESSES THIS AFTERNOON, IF THE COURT WANTS TO DO THAT.

JUDGE, I THINK WE NARROWED THE PETITIONERS CASE,
IF I COULD PUT A KIND OF RECAP WHERE WE ARE, THE CASE BEFORE
THE COURT ARE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE, I
BELIEVE DETERMINED COMPETENCY OF THE PETITIONERS TO STAND
TRIAL FOR THE MURDER OF KIMBERLY LEACH, AND AS THIS COURT
HAS POINTED OUT, THE DIRECTIVE OF CERTAIN LIMITS TO HEAR TO
GO TO THE ISSUE OF PETITIONERS MENTAL COMPETENCY TO STAND
TRIAL IN THE LEACH CASE ONLY. ;

ISSUES AS TO THE PETITIONERS MENTAL COMPETENCE AT


F

a2 fa fea

'

24

25

301

OTHER TIMES AREN'T REALLY INVOLVED HERE, AND ALSO I BELIEVE
IMPORTANTLY THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT IS NOT WHETHER THE
PETITIONER MAY HAVE BEEN A COMPETENT LAWYER, NOR IS THE
ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT WHICH DEGREE TO WHICH THE PETITIONER
MAY HAVE BEEN A DIFFICULT CLIENT.

I THINK INSTEAD THE ISSUE OF COMPETENCY TO STAND
TRIAL IS GOVERNED BY THE TWO PRONG STANDARD WHICH HAS BEEN
“POINTED OUT TO THE COURT, THAT IS SUFFICIENT ABILITY TO
CONSULT WITH HIS LAWYERS, WITH REASONABLE DEGREE OF RATIONAL
UNDERSTANDING AND RATIONAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, AND PETITIONER CAME BEFORE
THIS COURT TO THIS HEARING, CLOAKED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF
COMPETENCE. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS MET
ITS BURDEN OF OVERCOMING THAT PRESUMPTION. AND THE STATE
WILL NOW PROCEED TO FURTHER PROVE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS IN
FACT COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL IN THE LEACH CASE, WAS
COMPETENT TO CONSULT WITH AND ASSIST HIS LAWYERS, AND
CERTAINLY HAD A RATIONAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.

THANK YOU, JUDGE.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, AT

THIS POINT THE STATE WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY INTROUDUCING
SOME PHYSICAL DOCUMENTS. I WOULD ASK MS. ROGERS TO ASSIST
ME HERE TO GO THROUGH SOME THINGS.

THE FIRST THING WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO TAKE


24

25

302
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA VERSUS THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY UNDERTAKEN IN
THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HERE IN ORLANDO, IN ORANGE
COUNTY, IN THE CASE OF KIMBERLY LEACH. OUR UNDERSTANDING OF
THOSE MATERIALS, THOSE FILES ARE ALREADY IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE COURT. - -

THE COURT: THEY HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME ON AND

MR. DORAN:

‘WE ASK THE COURT MOVE THEM INTO
EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT HAS
THEM AT THIS MOMENT.

MR. COLEMAN: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEED IS TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE. THESE TRANSCRIPTS ARE PART OF THE RECORD
IN THIS CASE.

MR. DORAN: I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT COURT HAS
THOSE AND IS GOING TO BE AWARE OF THOSE.

THE COURT: BOX'S AND 80X'S OF THEM. WE GET THEM
AND SEND THEM OFF, AND GET THEM BACK, AND WE HAVE THEM AT
THE MOMENT.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT WHAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO DO IS INTRODUCE STATES-COMPOSIT EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE.
STATES EXHIBIT COMPOSIT EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE ARE THE CASSETTE
TAPES WHICH ACCOMPANY THE DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN MICHAUD

WHICH THE COURT HAS ALREADY I BELIEVE INTRODUCED INTO


mea re

INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE, AND WE CAN MOVE ON. —

303

EVIDENCE. FOR PURPOSE OF THE RECORD, THERE ARE TEN CASSETTE
TAPES. THESE TAPES ARE LABELED TAPE A, SHERIDAN HOUSE,
STANLEY SCHOOL; TAPE B IS LABELED SHERIDAN HOUSE, FRIENDS
AND ADVENTURES; TAPE C IS LABELED SHERIDAN HOUSE, FAMILY
LIFE, 1957 DASH 1953.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, IN ORDER TO SAVE SOME
TIME, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM SUBMITTING A DOCUMENT
THAT IDENTIFIES THE TEN TAPES. THERE ARE ALREADY BEEN

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE WITH THE couRT. OF COURSE
THE STATES CONDUCTING THEIR SIDE OF THE CASE. THEY CAN DO
IT ANY WAY THEY WANT.

MR. DORAN: I WOULD LIKE~—-

THE COURT: MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE YOU AGREE TO
SAVE WHATEVER TIME.

MR. DORAN: I CAN MOVE THROUGH THIS RATHER QUICKLY.

MR. COLEMAN: ONE OTHER QUESTION. COULD DOCTOR
LEWIS LEAVE NOW?

- THE COURT: DOCTOR LEWIS MAY-SIT THOUGHT IT OR IF--

SHE WANTED TO LISTEN-TO THE WITNESSES.

MR. DORAN: TAPE D IS LABELED MIKE FISHER, FIRST
MEETING TO TRANSPORT TO ASPEN,

TAPE E IS LABELED MIKE FISHER, TAPE F IS LABELED
ASPEN.

TAPE G IS LABELED VERDICT POST MORTUM.


|
304
| C 4 TAPE H IS LABELED MORNING AFTER VERDICT.
2 TAPE I IS LABELED WAITING FOR THE VERDICT.
| 3 AND TAPE J IS LABELED FEBRUARY 13, 1980, GENERAL
E 4 MATERIAL. i
5 YOUR HONOR, IN THAT EVENT, WE THEN ASK THE COURT |
r 6 TO MOVE INTO EVIDENCE STATES COMPOSIT EXHI8IT NUMBER FOUR,
7 7 WE HAVE COPIES, THESE ARE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ACADEMIC
F :

8 RECORDS OF MR. BUNDY'S FROM THE VARIOUS UNIVERSITIES. THESE :

9 MATERIALS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED AND I BELIEVE IN SOME

10 DETAIL BY THE PETITIONER IN THEIR CASE, BUT WE HAVE

11 CERTIFIED COPIES AND WE WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE

[e 12 CERTIFIED COPIES INTO EVIDENCE.
a

13 THE CCURT: THESE ARE THE SAME ONES THAT ARE FROM
| 14 WASHINGTON, FROM PUGET SOUND, FROM UTAH AND TEMPLE?

MR. DORAN: WE DON'T HAVE THE TEMPLE MATERIALS. WE

a

16 HAVE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH LAW SCHOOL,

C 17 | STANFORD UNIVERSITY, AND UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.

E 18 THE COURT: DO THE SAME ONES AS THE PETITIONER

e 19 EXHIBITS ONLY CERTIFIED.

E 20 MR. DORAN: THAT'S CORRECT. STATES COMPOSIT

& 21 | EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE ARE CERTIFIED COPIES OF VARIOUS MEDICAL
it

I 22 | RECORDS IN UTAH STATE PRISON.

E 23 THE COURT: SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE SO MUCH

\ 24 | PAPERWORK, MR. COLEMAN, COULD WE SUBSTITUTE THOSE FOR ONES

25 YOU HAVE SO THAT THEY ARE NOT DUPLICATED.


oe rr

aati

eS

f

24

25

305

MR. COLEMAN: I HAVE NOT SEEN THESE. I DON'T KNOW
THAT THEY ARE THE SAME. I DO KNOW THAT FOR EXAMPLE THE
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF LAW, THEY ONLY HAVE A
TRANSCRIPT, AND THE EXHIBIT THAT WE PROVIDED CONTAINS
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.

THE COURT: ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, I AM SAYING ONES
THAT ARE THE SAME, JUST PUT THEM IN AS JOINT EXHIBITS.

MR. COLEMAN: THAT'S RIGHT. WE CAN. STATES

EXHIBIT FIVE IS A COMPOSIT EXHIBIT, PART A OF THAT RECORD OF

THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF UTAH STATE
PRISON SYSTEM. -

PART B ARE CERTIFIED COPIES OF MEDICAL RECORDS OF
THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY,. ALIAS OF KENNETH M IS N E R FROM
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA.

AND PART C OF COMPOSIT EXHIBIT FIVE CERTIFIED COPY
OF MEDICAL RECORD OF THEODORE 8UNDY FROM ORANGE COUNTY
JAIL.

AND STATES EXHIBIT SEVEN, WHICH IS THE AFFIDAVIT
OF STEPHEN MICHAUD, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME
INFORMATION THAT'S CONTAINED IN THE DEPOSITION.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE OBJECT TO THE
INTRODUCTION OF ANY AFFIDAVIT. MR. MICHAUD'S DEPOSITION HAS
BEEN ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD, AND THIS THIS AFFIDAVIT
CERTAINLY OUGHT TO NOT TO COME IN.

MR. DORAN: I BELIEVE THE AFFIDAVIT IS MERELY


306
CUMULATIVE OF THE INFORMATION.
MR. COLEMAN: I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS.
THE COURT: O8JECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.
MR. DORAN: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
WE WOULD OFFER INTO EVIDENCE MEDICAL RECORDS OF

THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY FROM FLORID.

STATE PRISON SYSTEM DATED

CER EATY

FROM HIS POINT OF IDENTIFICATION, WE HAVE “COPIES OF THOSE

---AND- WE-WOULD--OFFER—TO- INTRODUGE- THEM. — WE-HAVE-MISS -DOWD; — - -

CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS HERE IN THE COURTROOM TODAY. IF
NECESSARY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH A CHAIN OF CUSTODY
AND AUTHENTICITY.

THE COURT: YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THEM SO THAT WE
COULD DO AWAY-~

MR. COLEMAN: THEY HAVE GIVEN ME, I AM SURE WE
CAN-~ WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD WE ARE
MARKING PRISON RECORD STATE COMPOSIT EXHIBIT NUMBER SIX,

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION FROM COUNSEL?

MR. COLEMAN: TO WHAT?

MR. DORAN: INTRODUCTION OF RECORDS. DO YOU HAVE
"ANY OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FLORIDA STATE
PRISON RECORDS?

MR. COLEMAN: NO.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT WHAT WE WOULD

LIKE TO DO, WITH THE COURTS INDULGENCE IS FROM STATES

L_

_|


24

25

307

COMPOSIT EXHI8IT NUMBER ONE, PLAY THREE OF THE TAPES FOR THE
COURT, AND I WOULD ASK MISS ROGERS IF SHE COULD ASSIST ME,
WE THOUGHT WE COULD HAVE MISS ROGERS SET UP THE TAPE
RECORDER IN THE WITNESS CHAIR AND PLAY THE TAPES THERE.
THEY ARE FAIRLY SHORT.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I AM GOING TO OBJECT TO
THAT AT THIS TIME. AS I INDICATED, WHEN THE TAPES WERE

OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE, I HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO

LISTEN TO THEM. I THINK YOUR HONOR RULED THAT THEY CAN COME

IN SUBJECT TO MY BEING ABLE TO REVIEW THEM. I HAD NO IDEA
THAT THEY INTENDED PLAY THEM AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: LISTEN TO THEM TONIGHT AND PLAY THEM
TOMORROW .

MR. COLEMAN: I WILL DO THAT, THAT'S FINE, AND IF
THE STATE WILL IDENTIFY THE ONES THEY INTEND TO PLAY.

MR. DORAN: WE INTEND TO PLAY TAPE A, WHICH IS
LABELED SHERIDAN HOUSE STANLEY SCHOOL; TAPE I, WAITING FOR
THE VERDICT; AND TAPE J, WHICH IS LABELED FEBRUARY 13, 1980,
GENERAL MATERIAL.

AT THIS POINT WE WOULD BE PREPARED-- EXCUSE ME ONE
MOMENT.

SO THAT RECORD IS CLEAR, THESE TAPES ARE ADMITTED
INTO EVIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: THEY ARE ADMITTED. HOWEVER, I DID

MENTION THAT MR. COLEMAN WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN


F

| 308

[ 1 | TO THEM AND VOICE ANY OBJECTIONS AND THEY ARE ADMITTED
2 | SUBJECT TO THOSE OBJECTIONS.
| 3 MR. DORAN: JUST PROVISIONAL. AT THIS POINT WE
E 4 | WOULD BE PREPARED THE TO CALL, IN ORDER TO-- PART OF THE
5 | TESTIMONY OF THIS WITNESS WE ARE GOING TO USE-~ WE HAVE A
E 6 | VIDEOTAPE THAT WE WOULD LIKE WITNESS TO SEE AND WE WOULD
ie
re 7 | LIKE TO IF YOU WANT--
‘ 8 THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE A RECESS.
oo Qo fo MRE DORAN IT- WILE -BE-RATHER-LENGTHY TESTIMONY OF ~~~

10 THIS WITNESS.

t
jk 11 THE COURT: YOU CAN SET UP THE VIDEO.

Pr 12 (RECESS TAKEN)

24

25


309!

| i MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THE STATE

on
is)

WOULD CALL GEORGE ROBERT DEKLE TO THE STAND.

w

WHEREUPON:
| 4 GEORGE R. DEKLE,

CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY

L. 5

i 6| SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

‘ 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION

8] BY MR. DORAN:

L 9) @. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST

— ~ "TO; NAME, PLEASE? oe TT re en me

. llj a. GEORGE ROBERT DEKLE, D E K L E.

l 12! a9. MR. DEKLE, HOW ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED?

cE 13/ a. I'M ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
i

i 14 OF FLORIDA.
15 Q. COULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE FOR THE COURT YOUR POST

16 HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION?

17 A. I HAVE A BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN HISTORY FROM THE

18 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 1970. I HAVE A JURIS DOCTOR DEGREE

oe 5
=
ite}

FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN 1973.

20 Q. UPON RECEIPT OF YOUR JURIS DOCTORATE DEGREE, DID YOU

21 TAKE ANY BAR EXAMINATION?

a 22] aA. < TOOK THE FLORIDA BAR.
23| Q. DID YOU PASS IT? - - . -
. 24] a. YES, SIR.
| ~ 25/ 0. ARE YOU CURRENTLY PRACTICING AS A LICENSED ATTORNEY IN

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

310
THE STATE OF FLORIDA?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER PRACTICED OR ARE YOU ADMITTED TO
PRACTICE IN ANY OTHER BARS AND JURISDICTIONS?
A. LAST YEAR I WAS SWORN AS A SPECIAL ASSISTANT UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.
Q. UPON YOUR GRADUATION OF LAW SCHOOL AND PASSING THE
BAR, WHAT TYPE OF A JOB DID YOU TAKE?

A. I WAS A LAW CLERK WITH THE FIRM JOPLING, DARBY, PEELE

“AND PAGE. THAT EMPLOYMENT BEGAN PRIOR TO MY GRADUATION FROM —

COLLEGE AND IT CONTINUED SOME TWO OR THREE MONTHS AFTER MY
GRADUATION FROM LAW SCHOOL.

Q. AT THE END OF THAT EMPLOYMENT WHAT DID YOU DO?

A. I TOOK A POSITION AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FLORIDA.

Q. WHERE IS THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA?

A. IT IS A CIRCUIT THAT COVERS SEVEN COUNTIES IN NORTH

FLORIDA. COLUMBIA, HAMILTON, SUWANNEE, DIXIE, TAYLOR AND

LAFAYETTE.
Q. AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER, WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES?
A. TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES AND COUNTY COURT, JUVENILE

COURT AND FELONY COURT.
a. DURING YOUR TENURE AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER, DID
YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO BE PROMOTED?

A. I HAD BEEN WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

24

25

311
APPROXIMATELY A YEAR WHEN I WAS A PROMOTED TO CHIEF

ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER.

Q. WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES AS CHIEF ASSISTANT PUBLIC
DEFENDER?
A. AS CHIEF ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER IN ADDITION TO

TRIAL OF ALL CASES IN ALL COURTS, I ASSUMED SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY OVER ALL THE OTHER ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN
THE OFFICE AND I ENGAGED IN THE BREAKING IN OF NEW

ASSISTANTS AS THEY CAME ON BOARD.

Q. “HOW LONG DID you SERVE AS CHIEF ASSISTANT PUBLIC | 7
DEFENDER?

A. APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND TWO MONTHS.

Q. DURING YOUR TIME AS ASSISTANT AND THEN CHIEF ASSISTANT

PUBLIC DEFENDER, HOW MANY JURY TRIALS DID YOU HAVE?
A. SIXTY EIGHT FELONY JURY TRIALS, SOMEWHERE IN THE

NEIGHBORHOOD OF SEVENTY FIVE TO A HUNDRED MISDEMEANOR JURY

TRIALS.
Q. HOW MANY NON-JURY TRIALS DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN?
A. ONE FELONY NON-JURY TRIAL AND I COULDN'T BEGIN TO GIVE

YOU A NUMBER OF NON-JURY TRIALS IN MISDEMBANOR COURT.

Q. MORE THAN A HUNDRED?
A. YES, SIR. BY LIKELY. — -
Q. DURING YOUR TENURE IN YOUR TRIAL PRACTICE AS ASSISTANT

PUBLIC DEFENDER, DID YOU EVER HANDLE FIRST DEGREE MURDER

CASES?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

DEKLE-DIRECT-DORAN

312
A. YES, SIR.
Q. HOW MANY FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASES WERE YOU INVOLVED
WITH?
A. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE DEFENSE OF SOMEWHERE IN THE

NEIGHBORHOOD OF APPROXIMATELY TWO DOZEN FIRST DEGREE MURDER

CASES.
Q. WAS THAT AS LEAD COUNSEL?
A. AS LEAD COUNSEL PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

OF ABOUT _A DOZEN... 2) we

Q. WHEN YOU SAY LEAD COUNSEL, WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

A. I MEAN THE LAWYER WHO WAS CHARGED WITH THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF
OF THE DEFENSE.

Q. OTHER THAN AS LEAD COUNSEL, HOW DID YOU SERVE?

A. I SERVED AS SECOND CHAIR COUNSEL IN A NUMBER OF FIRST
DEGREE MURDER PROSECUTIONS.

Q. HOW MANY OF THE APPROXIMATELY TWO DOZEN FIRST DEGREE
MURDER CASES THAT YOU HANDLED WERE CASES IN WHICH THE STATE
SOUGHT THE DEATH PENALTY?

A. JUST ABOUT EVERY ONE OF THEM WHERE THE STATE COULD
SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY, THEY DID.

Q. DID YOU SERVE AS LEAD COUNSEL IN ANY OF THOSE CASES?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. HOW MANY?

A. AS I SAID, SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABOUT A

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

DEKLE-DIRECT-DORAN

313
DOZEN. I SERVED AS LEAD COUNSEL IN APPROXIMATELY FOUR
ACTUAL TRIALS WHERE THE STATE WAS SEEKING THE DEATH PENALTY.
Q. DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION AS ASSISTANT PUBLIC
DEFENDER TO EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DEFENSE OF

INSANITY OR THE ISSUE OF INCOMPETENCY OF THE CLIENT TO STAND

TRIAL?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CASES?
KL OE WOURD SAY OF HE DOZEN OR So FIRST DEGREE MURDER ~

CASES WHERE I WAS LEAD COUNSEL, THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN
APPROXIMATELY EIGHT TO TEN OF THOSE IN WHICH THE POSSIBILITY
OF A DEFENSE OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY OR RAISING
THE ISSUE OF COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL WAS EXPLORED, AND IN
APPROXIMATELY FOUR OF THOSE CASES WHERE IT WAS ACTUALLY
PRESENTED IN COURT AS A DEFENSE. ;

Q. DID YOU HAVE SUCCESS IN THOSE FOUR CASES IN TERMS OF
THE VERDICT OR THE ACTION OF THE STATE?

A. ONE PARTICULAR CASE THAT WE DEFENDED FIRST DEGREE
MURDER CASE RESULTED IN, AFTER A JURY WAS SWORN AND AFTER
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE HAD BEGUN, THE STATE NOLLE PROSSED
THE CASE. a

Q. DO YOU RECALL THE NAME OF THAT CASE, THE DEFENDANTS
NAME IN THE CASE?

A. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN HALL. -

Q. HOW LONG DID YOU SERVE AS ASSISTANT OR A CHIEF

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER?

A. TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS.

Q. AND WHEN DID THAT EMPLOYMENT END?

A. IT ENDED JULY 31 OF 1975.

Q. WHAT DID YOU DO IN TERMS OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT AT THAT
TIME?

A. I TOOK A POSITION AS ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY OF THE

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA.
Q. THAT'S THE SAME CIRCUIT WHERE YOU PRACTICED AS A

PUBLIC DEFENDER?

A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. AND WHO WAS THE STATE ATTORNEY AT THE TIME?

A. THE STATE ATTORNEY WAS L. ARTHUR LAWRENCE AT THE TIME.
Q. WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES AS ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY?

A. I WAS HIRED TO TRY FELONY CASES IN CIRCUIT COURT,

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA. I ALSO TO A LESSER
EXTENT HANDLED MISDEMEANORS AND JUVENILE COURT CASES.
Q. WHAT SPECIAL DUTIES OR ADMINISTRATIVE POSTS HAVE YOU

HELD, IF ANY?

A. WITH THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE?
Q. YES.
A. BEGINNING ABOUT JANUARY OF 1977 I BECAME CHIEF

ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY AND I HELD THAT POST UNTIL
APPROXIMATELY SEPTEMBER OF 1978.

BEGINNING ABOUT 1981 I WAS ASSIGNED THE DUTY OF

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


Noe

es

I

foo)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2

i

25

©

315
BRANCH CHIEF IN THE LAKE CITY BRANCH OF THE STATE ATTORNEYS
OFFICE, AND I SERVED AS BRANCH CHIEF IN THE LAKE CITY STATE
ATTORNEYS OFFICE FROM APPROXIMATELY 1981 UNTIL ABOUT 1983,
MID 1983, EARLY 1983.
Q. WHAT WERE YOUR -~
A. BEGINNING -- EXCUSE ME, BUT THERE IS ONE OTHER
SUPERVISORY POST. BEGINNING IN APPROXIMATELY 1984 I WAS
ASSIGNED THE DUTIES OF BEING CHIEF OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTION

UNIT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE.

THAT'S A POST THAT I NOW HOLD.
Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE DUTIES OF THE CHIEF OF
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT?

A. AS FAR AS CHIEF OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT, I
SUPERVISE A UNIT CONSISTING OF MYSELF, ONE ASSISTANT STATE
ATTORNEY, ONE INVESTIGATOR, ONE SECRETARY, AND I AM ENGAGED
HEAVILY IN THE TRIAL PRACTICE PROSECUTING SPECIAL AND
COMPLEX CASES AND SUPERVISING THE INVESTIGATION OF SPECIAL
AND COMPLEX CASES AND THE PROSECUTION OF THOSE CASES BY ONE
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY WHO IS UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.
Q. WHEN YOU SAY SPECIAL AND COMPLEX CASES, CAN YOU GIVE
US SOME EXAMPLES?

A. SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT WAS DESIGNED 10 HANDLE
RACKETEERING CASES, DRUG TRAFFICKING CASES, WHO DUN IT
HOMICIDES, WHITE COLOR TYPE CRIME, ANY CROSS DESIGNATION

WITH THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

24

25

316
WE'RE IN, GOVENOR'S ASSIGNMENTS TO OTHER JUDICIAL CIRCUITS,

AND ANY OTHER CASES AS ASSIGNED BY THE STATE ATTORNEY.

Q. WHEN YOU SAY GOVERNOR'S ASSIGNMENTS, COULD YOU EXPLAIN
THAT?
A. GOVERNOR'S ASSIGNMENTS ARE CASES IN WHICH THE STATE

ATTORNEY OF A PARTICULAR CIRCUIT HAS SOME DIFFICULTY IN
PROSECUTING A PARTICULAR CASE, SAY CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR
SOME OTHER IMPEDIMENT TO THAT STATE ATTORNEY OR HIS OFFICE
PROCEEDING WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THAT CASE. HE AT THAT.
TIME NOTIFIES THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND REQUESTS A STATE
ATTORNEY OF ANOTHER CIRCUIT BE APPOINTED TO HANDLE THAT
PROSECUTION. THE GOVERNOR APPOINTS THE STATE ATTORNEY FROM
ANOTHER CIRCUIT AND HE THEN DELEGATES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE PROSEGUTION OF THAT PARTICULAR CASE TO ASSISTANT STATE
ATTORNEY. IN THE CASE OF OUR OFFICE, EITHER MYSELF OR ERNIE
PAGE, THE OTHER ASSISTANT IN OUR SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT.
Q. MR. DEKLE, I NOTE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TIME GAPS
BETWEEN YOUR DUTIES AS CHIEF ASSISTANT ‘AND THEN ASSISTANT,
OR I'M SORRY, AS BRANCH CHIEF AND CHIEF OF SPECIAL
PROSECUTION. COULD YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT YOU WERE DOING
IN THOSE PARTICULAR TIME PERIODS?

A. IN SEPTEMBER OF 1978 I RES IGNED MY POST AS CHIEF
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY AND FROM SEPTEMBER OF 1978 UNTIL
FEBRUARY OF 1980 I WAS ENGAGED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY IN THE

PROSECUTION OF STATE OF FLORIDA VERSUS THEODORE ROBERT

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


“ra

aie)

~~ Po Eee Ee Era

317

BUNDY.
Q. DID YOU HANDLE ANY OTHER TRIALS AT THAT TIME?
A. I TRIED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD I THINK ONE CASE, AND

THAT WAS MORE OR LESS IN THE NATURE OF KEEPING TRIALS STILL
CURRENT, TO KEEP FROM GETTING RUSTY.

Q. HOW ABOUT THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME YOU WERE
BRANCH CHIEF OF LAKE CITY AND YOUR CURRENT POSITION AS CHIEF
OF SPECIAL PROSECUTION?

A. I WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION OF A RACKETEERING,

CONSPIRACY, MURDER, KIDNAPPING AND FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE —

THAT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST ELEVEN INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CHICAGO
AREA OF ILLINOIS INVOLVING THE MURDER OF AN AGRICULTURAL
INSPECTOR IN COLUMBIA COUNTY.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE VICTIM, OR THE DEFENDANT
IN THIS CASE?

A. THE DEFENDANT, THE FIRST DEFENDANT ON THE INFORMATION

DorgskG $4 Ware-cd
OR INDICTMENT WAS ROBERT DAVID DOMBER (PH). THERE WERE TEN

OTHERS.

Q. AND WHAT WAS THE VICTIM'S NAME IN THIS CASE?

A. AUSTIN DEWEY GAY.

Q. AND HOW WAS MR. GAY EMPLOYED?

A. MR. GAY WAS EMPLOYED AS AN AGRICULTURAL INSPECTOR WITH

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL CONSUMER SERVICES.
MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO

CONTINUING THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. I DON'T SEE ITS

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY PROFFER FOR THE
RECORD, OUR INTENT HERE IS TO QUALIFY MR. DEKLE AS AN EXPERT
IN THE AREA OF CRIMINAL TRIAL PRACTICE, SPECIFICALLY IN THE
AREA OF INCOMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL, AND WE FEEL THAT UNDER
THE STANDARDS ANNOUNCED BY THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, INDIVIDUALS

WITH THE SPECIAL TRAINING, KNOWLEDGE AND OBSERVATIONS OF

_THIS CASE, SUCH AS MR. DEKLE, WOULD BE ABLE TO TENDER _

OPINION TO THE COURT AND WE WOULD ASK --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, SIR, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR
RECORD.

MR. DORAN; THANK YOU.
BY MR. DORAN:
Q. MR. DEKLE, AS ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, HAVE YOU HAD
OCCASION TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION OF FIRST DEGREE _

MURDER CASES?

A. ‘THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. HOW Many? : -
A. I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY TWO DOZEN FIRST DEGREE

MURDER CASES IN ONE CAPACITY OR ANOTHER. I WOULD SAY I WAS
LEAD COUNSEL IN PROSECUTION OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHT OR TEN
FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASES.

Q. AND HOW MANY OF THOSE CASES DID THE STATE SEEK THE

DEATH PENALTY?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

319
A. THE STATE BEGAN SEEKING THE DEATH PENALTY IN OF COURSE
ALL THE CASES.
Q. IN ANY OF THESE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASES, DID YOU
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO THE COURT ARGUMENT
REGARDING THE QUESTION OF INSANITY OR INCOMPETENCY TO STAND
TRIAL?
A. THERE IS ONE PARTICULAR CASE THAT I PROSECUTED, STATE
OF FLORIDA VERSUS LARRY LEON DAUGHTY (PH) IN WHICH MR.
DAUGHTY WAS FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL AND HE WAS
INCARCERATED OR HOSPITALIZED WOULD BE A BETTER CHOICE OF
WORDS WITH NORTH FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL CHATTAHOOCHEE UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS HE BECAME COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL. THERE WAS
NO REAL ARGUMENT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE THAT WAS A
CASE WHERE I CALLED THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND SUGGESTED HE
FILE THE MOTION AND AS A RESULT OF MY SUGGESTION TO HIM, HE
DID FILE THE MOTION AND MR. DAUGHTY WAS FOUND INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL.
Q. AS ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY

JURY TRIALS, FELONY JURY TRIALS HAVE YOU HAD?

A. ONE HUNDRED AND TWO, APPROXIMATELY. I MAY BE OFF ONE
OR TWO.
Q. MR. DEKLE, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN TEACHING

REGARDING TO THE LAW OR SPECIFICALLY TO CRIMINAL LAW?
A. YES, SIR. I'VE TAUGHT MINIMUM STANDARDS CLASSES AT

THE LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGE. I HAVE TAUGHT AT FLORIDA

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

320
PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION CONVENTION ON THE SUBJECT
OF FORENSIC SCIENCE. I HAVE TAUGHT AT THE SOUTHERN
ASSOCIATION OF FORENSIC SCIENTISTS ON THE SUBJECT OF
COURTROOM PRESENTATION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE EVIDENCE. AND I
HAVE TAUGHT AT THE FLORIDA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS DUI SCHOOL
WHICH IS A SCHOOL FOR NEW ATTORNEYS WITH THE STATE ATTORNEYS
OFFICE, TEACHING THEM THE MECHANICS OF TRYING DUI CASES.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER PUBLISHED ANY ARTICLES, PAPERS OR OTHER

MATERIALS REGARDING CRIMINAL LAW?

A. PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN THE FLORIDA PROSECUTORS MANUAL

ON REQUIRED PRETRIAL NOTICES WHICH INCLUDED INSANITY
NOTICES, HABITUAL DEFENDER NOTICES AND WILLIAMS RULE NOTICES
AND ONE OR TWO OTHER NOTICES THAT ESCAPE MY MIND RIGHT AT
THIS MOMENT.
Q. MR. DEKLE, I KNOW YOU'RE A MODEST MAN, BUT WILL YOU
TELL THE COURT IF YOU HAVE EVER WON ANY AWARDS REGARDING
YOUR SERVICE AS ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY?
A. IN 1986 I WAS RECIPIENT OF GENE BARRY MEMORIAL AWARD
AS AN OUTSTANDING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THE STATE
WOULD PROFFER MR. DORAN AS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF
CRIMINAL TRIAL PRACTICE. . - ~ —

THE COURT: ANY VOIR DIRE?

MR. COLEMAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T THINK IT'S

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

at ON ON eee

321

RELEVANT THAT HE'S AN EXPERT, ASSUMING THAT HE IS. THE
STATE HAS BEEN ARGUING THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT
THIS IS ABOUT MR. BUNDY'S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL IN 1979
AND 1980, AND WHETHER MR. DEKLE IS AN EXPERT IN CRIMINAL
TRIAL PRACTICE IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK IT'S IRRELEVANT
TOO. YOU MAY PROCEED.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT I'LL GET TO
THE MEAT OF IT AND I THINK I'LL SHOW THE RELEVANCY. — -_

BY MR. DORAN:

Q. MR. DEKLE, HOW DID YOU BECOME INVOLVED IN THE BUNDY
CASE? :
A. IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES THAT HAD COMBINED IN A TASK FORCE TO INVESTIGATE
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF KIMBERLY DIANE LEACH, THEY WERE HAVING
SOME PROBLEMS COORDINATING THEIR EFFORTS, AND THEY REQUESTED
ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE AND I WAS
ASSIGNED BY THEN STATE ATTORNEY ARTHUR LAWRENCE TO BE THAT
PERSON FROM THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE TO ASSIST.

Q. MR. DEKLE, AT THIS POINT I ASK YOU TO LOOK AROUND THE

COURTROOM AND SEE IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THEODORE ROBERT

BUNDY.

A. I CAN.
Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE DO SO BY POINTING HIM OUT AND

DESCRIBING WHAT HE'S WEARING?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

DEKLE-DIRECT-DORAN

A.

A WHITE LONG SLEEVED SHIRT AND HOLDING A PEN IN HIS LEFT

HAND.

Q.

A.

BELIEVE OF 1978.

Q.

322

HE'S THE GENTLEMAN SEATED NEXT TO MR. COLEMAN WEARING

WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU MET MR. BUNDY?

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETIME IN MARCH OR APRIL I

AND HOW, COULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THAT MEETING, HOW

LONG IT TOOK?

MINUTES.

FIFTEEN MINUTES WOULD BE A GENEROUS ESTIMATE OF

“hy ~ ~ THE MEETING LASTED APPROXIMATELY TEN TO FIFTEEN ~~ ~~

THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING. I THINK TEN WOULD BE MORE

CLOSER.

FLORIDA.

Q.

A.

WHAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING ABOUT?

IT WAS A MEETING BETWEEN MR. BUNDY, SEVERAL

INVESTIGATORS WHO WERE INVESTIGATING THE KIMBERLY DIANE

IT AN OCCURRED AT LEON COUNTY JAIL IN TALLAHASSEE,

LEACH DISAPPEARANCE, MR. BUNDY'S ATTORNEY, JOE NERSEY, AND I

WAS PRESENT ALSO.

IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO, ON THE PART OF

THOSE INVESTIGATORS, TO INTERVIEW MR. BUNDY CONCERNING ANY

POSSIBLE KNOWLEDGE HE MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF

KIMBERLY DIANE LEACH.

Q.

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT MEETING, DID YOU HAVE OTHER

OCCASIONS TO MEET WITH OR BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH MR.

BUNDY?

A.

YES,

SIR.

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

OOS

24

25

DEKLE~DIRECT-DORAN

323
Q. COULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THOSE OCCASIONS?
A. - THEY WOULD BE THE USUAL COURTROOM APPEARANCE TYPE
OCCASIONS IN PRETRIAL MOTIONS, PRETRIAL HEARINGS AND
WHATNOT. ALSO, THERE WAS A TIME DURING THE PROSECUTION OF
MR. BUNDY IN THE KIMBERLY DIANE LEACH CASE WHERE HE ACTED AS
PRO SE COUNSEL. DURING THAT TIME MR. BUNDY TOOK
APPROXIMATELY TWO TO FOUR WEEKS WORTH OF DEPOSITIONS AT THE
LEON COUNTY JAIL IN TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA AND I SPENT TWO TO
FOUR WEEKS AT THE LEON-COUNTY-JAIL WITH MR.-BUNDY..ABOUT -

APPROXIMATELY EIGHT HOURS A DAY WHILE HE TOOK THOSE

DEPOSITIONS.

Q. HOW WAS IT THAT MR. BUNDY CAME TO BE REPRESENTING
HIMSELF?

A. IT WAS DUE TO A RULING BY CIRCUIT JUDGE WALLACE

JOPLING IN WHICH HE DISQUALIFIED MR. BUNDY'S CHOSEN
ATTORNEY, MILLARD FARMER, FROM REPRESENTATION OF MR. BUNDY.
MR. FARMER HAD FILED A MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HOC VICE OR
HOWEVER YOU PRONOUNCE IT, AND THAT MOTION HAD BEEN DENIED,
AND MR. BUNDY HAD MADE STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT IF HE

COULDN'T HAVE THE COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE, HE WOULD BE HIS OWN

COUNSEL.

Q. DID HE CITE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT HIS
POSITION?

A. HE CITED THE FERETTA (PH) DECISION AS AUTHORITY FOR

THE PROPOSITION THAT HE COULD AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


324

REPRESENT HIMSELF AND EXPOUNDED AT SOME LENGTH ON THE
FERETTA HOLDING.
Q. WAS THE FERETTA DECISION WELL KNOWN AT THAT TIME?

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR -~

MR. DORAN; ILL MOVE ON, YOUR HONOR. I'LL STRIKE
THE QUESTION.
BY MR. DORAN:
Q. MR. DEKLE, DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN YOURSELF AND

ATTORNEYS FOR MR. BUNDY DISCUSSED A POSSIBILITY OF A PLEA

AGREEMENT? 7

A. THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.
Q. COULD YOU PLEASE RELATE TO THE COURT THE DETAILS

SURROUNDING THAT?

A. IT WAS SOMETIME, I BELIEVE THE FIRST TIME THE SUBJECT
APPROACHED TO ME WAS BY MIKE MINERVA, SOMETIME SHORTLY PRIOR
TO THE EXECUTION OF MR. SPINKELINK IN FLORIDA. MR. MINERVA
APPROACHED ME ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF WORKING THE CASE OUT
ON A PLEA BARGAIN FOR AVOIDING THE CHAIR.

Q. WHAT WERE THE DETAILS OF THAT AGREEMENT?

A. AS THEY WERE FINALLY AGREED UPON, MR. BUNDY WAS TO
ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY AS CHARGED TO ALL COUNTS, HE WAS TO
RECEIVE THREE LIFE SENTENCES IN THREE FIRST DEGREE MURDER
COUNTS. THE THREE LIFE SENTENCES WOULD RUN CONSECUTIVE ONE
TO ANOTHER GIVING MR. BUNDY SEVENTY FIVE YEARS TO SERVE IN

THE STATE PENITENTIARY PRIOR TO BEING ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE.

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

ee

“SS FO FS FAT Fr 63 es

r=

1

i

24

25

325
Q. WERE THERE ANY OTHER SPECIFIC DETAILS ABOUT THE PLEA
AGREEMENT THAT WERE INCLUDED?
A. THE PLEA AGREEMENT AS IT RELATED TO THE LAKE CITY CASE

WAS REDUCED TO WRITING AND SIGNED BY MR. BUNDY.

Q. WHO REDUCED IT TO WRITING?

A. WE HAVE A STANDARD FORM TYPE PLEA AGREEMENT THAT'S
USED IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT AND THAT STANDARD FORM PLEA
AGREEMENT WAS MODIFIED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS

PARTICULAR CASE AND WAS TENDERED TO MR. BUNDY FOR HIS

"SIGNATURE.
Q. WHO TENDERED IT TO HIM?
A. I GAVE THE PLEA FORM TO MIKE MINERVA, AND MR. MINERVA

SAID HE WOULD PRESENT IT TO MR. BUNDY.

Q. WAS THAT FORM SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED TO YOU?

A. PRIOR TO THE HEARING AT WHICH MR. BUNDY WAS SUPPOSED
TO TENDER HIS PLEA I INSISTED UPON SEEING THE SIGNED
DOCUMENT PRIOR TO GOING INTO THE HEARING ROOM, THE
COURTROOM, AND IT WAS PRODUCED BY MR. MINERVA AND I LOOKED
TO THE LAST PAGE AND SAW MR. BUNDY'S SIGNATURE ON THE
DOCUMENT. :

Q. IN THAT AGREEMENT WERE THERE ANY SPECIAL DETAILS
REGARDING THE DETAILS OF THE CRIME?

A. I INSISTED THAT AS A PART OF THE PLEA MR. BUNDY
CONFESS TO THE PERPETRATION OF THE MURDER AND THERE WAS A

PARAGRAPH INCLUDED IN THE PLEA IN WHICH IN RATHER LIMITED

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

24

25

326
DETAIL OUTLINED THE ESSENTIAL FACTS THAT WOULD SHOW MR.
BUNDY GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AGAINST
KIMBERLY DIANE LEACH.
Q. WHEN THE COURT CONVENED TO TAKE THE PLEA, COULD YOU
TELL ME WHO WAS THERE?
A. BY MY RECOLLECTION, JUDGE CAROLTON WAS THERE, JUDGE
JOPLING WAS THERE. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE WERE
MYSELF; JERRY BLAIR, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT; HARRY MORRISON, STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE SECOND

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; LARRY SIMPSON, ASSISTANT STATE ADTORNEY, ~
SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; DAN MCKEEVER, ASSSISTANT STATE
ATTORNEY, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.

ON THE DEFENSE SIDE, ALTHOUGH NOT ALL OF THEM WERE
BEHIND THAT WERE BEHIND THE BAR SO TO SPEAK, I THINK THERE
WERE A COUPLE OF THEM IN THE AUDIENCE, THE PERSONS WHO WERE
PRESENT WERE ED HARVEY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER; MICHAEL
MINERVA, PUBLIC DEFENDER; JOHN BROWN, AN ATTORNEY FROM I
BELIEVE HE SAID SEATTLE AREA REPRESENTING MR. BUNDY; MILLARD
FARMER WAS THERE FROM GEORGIA; AND IF MEMORY SERVES ME
CORRECTLY VIC AFRICANO WAS PRESENT AS A SPECTATOR IN THE
AUDIENCE. HAVING JUST BEEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MR. BUNDY
IN THE LAKE CITY CASE, HE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE
COMING IN AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT HE BE INVOLVED, I DON'T

THINK, IN THE ACTUAL TENDER OF THE PLEA.

Q. WHAT WAS THE SCHEDULED PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

F

©

24

25

327
A. SCHEDULED PURPOSE FOR THE HEARING WAS FOR THE COURT TO
CONSIDER A TENDER OF PLEA OF GUILTY BY MR. BUNDY TO ALL

COUNTS AGAINST HIM IN BOTH INDICTMENTS.

Q. AND THAT WAS BASED UPON HIS WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT HEARING?

A. MR. BUNDY GOT UP AND BEGAN TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ASSISTANCE THAT HE WAS RECEIVING FROM

MR. MINERVA AND THE DEFENSE TEAM AND HE OUTLINED AT SOME

LENGTH HIS REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH MR. MINERVA.
WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON I DISCUSSED WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH
STATE ATTORNEY JERRY BLAIR, WITH ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY
LARRY SIMPSON TO THE EFFECT THAT I FELT MR. BUNDY WAS
SETTING US UP FOR THE ENTRY OF A PLEA AND LATER ON AFTER
SUFFICIENT WITNESS HAD DIED TO INSURE THAT HE COULDN'T BE
CONVICTED, FILING OF A POST CONVICTION MOTION ATTACKING HIS
PLEA ON GROUNDS OF INCOMPETENT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

IT WAS DISCUSSED AMONG US AND DECIDED AMONG US
THAT THE STATE OF THE RECORD BEING WHAT IT WAS, THAT MR.

BUNDY COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TENDER SUCH A PLEA TO THE
COURT. :

- “I WENT BACK AND SAT DOWN IN MY CHAIR WHICH was
NEXT T0 THE DEFENSE TABLE AND IMMEDIATELY TO MY LEFT WAS
MICHAEL MINERVA, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WHO WAS REPRESENTING

MR. BUNDY. MR. BUNDY GOT TO SOME POINT IN HIS PRESENTATION

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


Eg

24

25

Meni oe he 2 Oe

328
WHERE HE PICKED UP THE DOCUMENT THAT APPEARED TO ME TO BE
THE PLEA FORM ITSELF. I LEANED OVER TO MR. MINERVA AND I
SAID HE IS NOT GOING TO ENTER A PLEA NOW, IS HE? AND MR.
MINERVA SAID I BELIEVE HE IS. I SAID TO MR. MINERVA, TELL
HIM TO-SIT DOWN, WE AIN'T TAKING NO PLEAS.

MR. MINERVA REACHED OVER, TUGGED ON MR. BUNDY'S
SHIRT SLEEVE, MR. BUNDY BENT OVER, THERE WAS A WHISPERED
CONVERSATION WHICH I COULD NOT HEAR. AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THAT. CONVERSATION- MR. BUNDY APPEARED TO BE DISTRESSED, SAID_
A FEW MORE WORDS AND SAT DOWN.
Q. ARE YOU TELLING THE COURT THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA
CALLED OFF THE PLEA?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. THE -PLEA WAS CALLED OFF. DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO

HAVE ANY OTHER PRETRIAL MEETINGS WITH MR. BUNDY?

A. YES, SIR, IN THE COURT.
Q. AND WHAT WERE THE PURPOSE OF THOSE MEETINGS?
A. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND MOTIONS

IN LIMINE AND MOTIONS FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND JUST MYRIADS
OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS THAT WERE LITIGATED PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL
TRIAL OF THE CASE THAT MR. BUNDY WAS PRESENT FOR AND THAT I
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HIM,.BE_WITH HIM AND INTERACT WITH
HIM IN SOME DEGREE OR ANOTHER.

Q. COULD YOU APPROXIMATE HOW MANY HOURS THESE PRETRIAL

MOTIONS TOOK?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

24

25

329
A. I WOULD SAY THAT THE PRETRIAL MOTIONS TOOK

APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AND A HALF OF EIGHT HOUR DAYS TO

COMPLETE.
Q. HOW LONG DID THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE LAST?
A. THE TRIAL COMMENCED IN EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND WEEK

OF JANUARY, 1980, AND THE PENALTY PHASE PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE TO THE JURY CONCLUDED ON FEBRUARY 9 OF 1980. MR.

BUNDY WAS SENTENCED ON FEBRUARY 12 OF 1980.

Q. HOW LONG DID THE JURY SELECTION TAKE? a
A. gRY Seincrron TOOK APPROXIMATELY A WEEK. :
Q. WAS MR. BUNDY PRESENT DURING THE JURY VOIR DIRE?

A. ‘YES, SIR, HE WAS.

Q. DID HE HAVE ANY ROLE TO PLAY AS PART OF THE DEFENSE

TEAM DURING THE JURY SELECTION?

A. NOT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY HE DID NOT.
Q. WHAT OTHER, HOW ELSE WOULD HE HAVE A ROLE?
A. THERE WERE CONFERENCES AND PRETRIAL MATTERS THAT WERE

TAKEN UP OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY IN WHICH MR. BUNDY
PARTICIPATED TO A LIMITED EXTENT AS, QUOTE, CO-COUNSEL,
CLOSE QUOTE, MAKING LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND WHATNOT TO THE

COURT.

-Q. TOWARD THE END OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS, DID

ANYTHING UNUSUAL OCCUR IN COURT REGARDING MR. BUNDY?
A. AT ONE PARTICULAR OCCASION MR. BUNDY HAD A FLARE UP

TOWARDS THE END OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS AFTER A

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

eis

ez Ss

é

DEKLE-~DIRECT-DORAN

330

GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF PATRICK WOLSKI WAS SEATED AS A

JUROR.
Q. COULD YOU DESCRIBE BRIEFLY WHAT THAT FLARE UP WAS?
A. WELL, THE DEFENSE HAD RUN OUT OF PREEMPTORY

CHALLENGES. THE STATE STILL HAD A NUMBER OF PREEMPTORY
CHALLENGES LEFT WHICH WE WERE EXERCISING. WHEN MR. WOLSKI
TOOK THE CHAIR AS A PROSPECTIVE JUROR, HE WAS PERCEIVED TO
BE AN ACCEPTABLE JUROR BY THE STATE AND PERCEIVED TO BE AN
UNACCEPTABLE JUROR BY THE DEFENSE. THERE WAS A VERY
CONCERTED EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE TO EITHER HAVE
MR. WOLSKI CHALLENGED FOR CAUSE OR HAVE ADDITIONAL
PREEMPTORIES AWARDED TO THEM IN ORDER TO EXERCISE ONE OF
THESE ADDITIONAL PREEMPTORIES AGAINST MR. WOLSKI.

“THE TRIAL JUDGE RULED THAT MR. WOLSKI WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO A CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE. THE TRIAL JUDGE ALSO
RULED THAT THE DEFENSE HAD BEEN AWARDED A NUMBER OF
PREEMPTORIES TO BEGIN WITH, FAR IN EXCESS OF THE NORMAL
NUMBER OF PREEMPTORIES AWARDED, AND THEY WEREN'T GOING TO
GET ANY MORE.

WHEN MR. WOLSKI WAS SEATED AND AFTER MR. WOLSKI
EXITED THE COURTROOM, MR. BUNDY THEN ACTED OUT IN AN ANGRY
FASHION IN WHAT WAS PERCEIVED BY ME AS AN ATTEMPT TO
INTIMIDATE JUDGE JOPLING INTO EXCUSING MR. WOLSKI FROM THE
JURY PANEL.

Q. WAS MR. WOLSKI PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN THIS

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

OCCURRED?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. WERE ANY JURORS OR PROSPECTIVE JURORS PRESENT?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. DO YOU RECALL PRECISELY WHAT IT WAS THAT MR. BUNDY
DID?

A. MR. BUNDY GOT UP, HE MADE SOME COMMENTS TO THE EFFECT ~

THAT MR. WOLSKI WAS A HANGING JUROR, THAT THE STATE HAD BEEN

ENGAGED IN A RATHER LENGTHY SEARCH FOR A FOREMAN OF THE

JURY, AND THAT THE STATE HAD OBVIOUSLY CHOSEN MR. WOLSKI AS
THEIR NUMBER ONE CANDIDATE FOR FOREMAN OF THE JURY, AND MR.
WOLSKI WAS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO THE DEFENSE. AND THAT
THIS WAS A, TO USE THE VERNACULAR TERM I DON'T KNOW THAT HE
USED, WAS A RAILROAD TYPE OF A SITUATION WHERE THE DEFENSE
WAS BEING MISTREATED.

DURING THAT TIRADE HE SPOKE TO MR. BLAIR IN AN
ANGRY FASHION AND SAID WORDS TO THE EFFECT I WILL RAIN ON
YOUR PARADE, JACK. -

HE THEN MADE SOME STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT HE
WAS NOT GOING TO STAND STILL FOR THIS TYPE OF IMPROPER
BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF THE COURT, AND THE PROSECUTOR AND HE
WAS LEAVING THE COURTROOM.’

THERE WAS A BAILIFF THERE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM
WHO WAS APPROXIMATELY SIX FOOT FOUR IN HEIGHT AND A VERY

BROAD ACROSS THE SHOULDERS WHO GRABBED MR. BUNDY BY THE ARM

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

332
AS HE EXITED THE COURTROOM. MR. BUNDY DID NOT SEE WHO HAD
GRABBED HIM TO BEGIN WITH, TURNED IN A VERY ANGRY FASHION TO
CONFRONT THE PERSON WHO GRABBED HIM, SIZED UP THE HEIGHT,
BREATH OF SHOULDERS AND MUSCULATURE OF ARMS OF THE MAN WHO
HAD HIM BY THE ARM, AND IMMEDIATELY BECAME VERY DOCILE.
Q. DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LEARN OR GAIN INFORMATION
THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A CALCULATED OUTBURST ON MR.

BUNDY'S PART?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. WOULD YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT THAT INFORMATION WAS?
A. IT WAS A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH DON KENNEDY.

MR. COLEMAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS BOUGHT OUT ON MR.
KENNEDY'S EXAMINATION YESTERDAY IN WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT IT
MAY VERY WELL BE THAT HE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR.
DEKLE AND WE JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON IT.

THE COURT: OBJECTION OVERRULED.
BY MR. DORAN: - ~ -
Q. GO AHEAD, MR. DEKLE. WHAT WAS THAT CONVERSATION?
A. SHORTLY AFTER THE OUTBURST I EXPRESSED MY OPINION TO
MR. KENNEDY THAT THIS WAS CALCULATED ON MR. BUNDY'S PART TO
INTIMIDATE JUDGE JOPLING INTO EXCUSING MR. WOLSKI.- MR. ~
KENNEDY ADVISED ME THAT MR. BUNDY HAD TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS,
OF COURSE, ON DEATH ROW AT THE TIME, HE WAS KIND OF LOW MAN

ON THE TOTEM POLE AT DEATH ROW AT THE TIME AND HE HAD TO DO

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

24

25

333
SOMETHING TO ACT OUT IN COURT TO GAIN STATURE IN THE EYES: OF
HIS FELLOW PRISONERS ON DEATH ROW AND THAT HE CHOSE THIS
VEHICLE TO GAIN STATURE IN THE EYES OF HIS FELLOW INMATES.
Q. LET'S TURN FOR A MOMENT TO THE STATE'S CASE AGAINST
MR. BUNDY, THE LEACH CASE. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF
EVIDENCE THE STATE HAD IN SHORT TERMS?
A. LARGELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE AND LARGELY A SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE CASE.
Q. WHAT TYPE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE DID THE STATE HAVE?
A. : WE PRESENTED FIBER EVIDENCE. WE PRESENTED BLOOD
EVIDENCE. WE PRESENTED EVIDENCE CONCERNING OTHER BODY
FLUIDS, PARTICULARLY SEMEN. WE PRESENTED EVIDENCE
CONCERNING FOOT TRACKS. WE PRESENTED EVIDENCE CONCERNING
HANDWRITING ANALYSIS. WE PRESENTED AS IT WAS FINGERPRINT
EVIDENCE, BUT THAT WAS BASICALLY EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE OF

FINGERPRINTS AND MEASURES TAKEN TO OBLITERATE FINGERPRINTS.

Q. THERE WAS ALSO HYPNOTIC TESTIMONY, WAS THERE NOT?
A. YES, SIR, THERE WAS HYPNOTIC TESTIMONY.
Q. WERE DEPOSITIONS TAKEN PRIOR TO THE TRIAL REGARDING

THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. DID MR. BUNDY TAKE ANY OF THESE DEPOSITIONS?

A. YES, SIR. : : : :

Q. WHICH ONES DID HE TAKE?

A. AS I RECALL IT, HE TOOK THE DEPOSITION OF MARILYN

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

DEKLE-DIRECT-DORAN

334
HENSON WHO WAS THE CRIME LAB ANALYST WHO WAS THE FIBER
ANALYST, DID MUCH OF THE FIBER ANALYSIS AND ALSO DID THE
FOOT TRACK ANALYSIS.

HE TOOK THE DEPOSITION OF DICK STEVENS WHO WAS THE
SEROLOGIST WHO GAVE THE BLOOD AND SEMEN ANALYSIS.

HE TOOK THE DEPOSITION OF DALE KNUTE WHO WAS A LAB
ANALYST WHO EVENTUALLY TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE
CONCERNING SOME SOIL ANALYSIS.

HE TOOK THE DEPOSITION OF DOUG-BARROW WHO WAS A - - -
FINGERPRINT ANALYST WITH THE FDLE AND ALSO HAD DONE SOME
ANALYSIS OF CIGARETTE BUTTS AS FAR AS THE METHOD OF
OPERATION OF SMOKING THOSE CIGARETTE BUTTS WHICH WAS NOT
TESTIFIED TO AT TRIAL.

‘HE TOOK THE TESTIMONY OF PAT LASKO WHO WAS A CRIME
LAB ANALYST IN THE MICROANALYSIS SECTION WHO DID THE HAIR
ANALYSIS IN THE CASE WHICH WAS BASICALLY TESTIMONY
CONCERNING AN ABSENCE OF HAIR. SHE TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENSE.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS, BUT ESCAPE ME AT- THIS~ ~~

MOMENT. - So -

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


—
DEKLE ~ DIRECT - DORAN
335
Qo. WHO TOOK THE TESTIMONY OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER?
A. THAT WAS TAKEN BY MR. BUNDY.
Q. WHO TOOK THE EXAMINATION OF INVESTIGATOR JIM SEWELL F
DL E?
A. TAKEN BY MR. BUNDY.
Q. WERE YOU PRESENT AT ANY OF THESE DEPOSITIONS?
A. I DON'T BELIEVE MR. SEWELL'S F DLA, I THINK F SH
POLICE DEPARTMENT... - ee He
Q. WERE YOU PRESENT ANY OF THESE DEPOSITIONS?
A. YES, SIR. -
Q. WERE YOU PRESENT AT ALL THESE DEPOSITIONS?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE BRIEFLY REGARDING THE MARRY LYNN

HENSON DEPOSITION HOW MR. BUNDY APPROACHED THAT TASK?

A. MR. BUNDY QUESTIONED MISS HENSON IN A FASHION WHICH
WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT FROM HER THE KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE HAD
CONCERNING THE CASE, AND THE METHODOLOGY THAT SHE USED IN
ARRIVING AT THOSE CONCLUSIONS. AND DID AN ADEQUATE J0B8 oF

EXPLORING THAT AND MAKING THE RECORD OF IT FOR DEPOSITION

PURPOSES.
Q. WHAT KIND OF QUESTIONS DID HE ASK HER?
A. NOT HAVING REVIEWED THE DEPOSITION IN QUITE A LONG

TIME, I COULDN'T GIVE YOU SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT THERE WERE
QUESTIONS THAT WENT INTO HER METHODOLOGY, THE TYPE OF THINGS

THAT SHE WAS LOOKING FOR, THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT SHE COULD


24

25

DEKLE ~ DIRECT - DORAN
336

DO WITH FI8ER ANALYSIS, THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT COULDN'T BE
DONE WITH FIBER ANALYSIS, WHERE SHE COULD 8E POSITIVE ON
CERTAIN ANALYSIS, WHERE SHE COULD NOT BE POSITIVE ON CERTAIN
ANALYSIS, THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE ANALYSIS WAS I BELIEVE
PRETTY THOROUGHLY EXPLORED, AND THAT SORT OF OUESTION AND
OVER AREAS THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY EXPECT TO QUESTION
PERSONS OVER IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF EXPERTISE.

Q. WHAT WAS THE. STATE OF THE LAW REGARDING FIBER EVIDENCE
ANALYSIS DURING THIS TIME?

A. IT WAS MY RECOLLECTION THERE WERE NO FLORIDA APPELLATE
CASES ON THE SUBJECT OF FI8ER ANALYSIS: WE HAD TO DO A
RATHER EXTENSIVE BIT OF RESEARCH AND UNDER STRATEGY TO FIND
FIBER CASES, TO PRESENT TO THE COURT AS AUTHORITY FOR
PROPOSITION SUCH TESTIMONY WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE JURY, AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
OUR CASE WAS GOING TO BE MORE OR LESS A CASE OF FIRST
IMPRESSION, AS FAR AS APPELLATE DECISIONS WERE CONCERNED IN

THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

Q. DID THE DEFENSE EVER FILE ANY MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE THE
SENTENCE?

A. THEY QUITE VIGOROUSLY ATTACKED THE FIBER ANALYSIS.
Q. WAS MR. BUNDY INVOLVED IN THOSE MOTIONS? :

A. YES, SIR.

Q. TO WHAT DEGREE?

A. AS I RECALL WE HAD HAD SOME HEARINGS IN THE LAKE CITY


box

i
rN

DEKLE - DIRECT ~ DORAN
337

AREA, AND THEN IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
TRIAL IN ORLANDO THERE WAS SOME SUPPLIMENTARY HEARINGS ON
THE ISSUE, AND I BELIEVE THAT DURING THE SUPPLIMENTARY
HEARINGS ON THE ISSUE IN ORLANDO MR. BUNDY PARTICIPATED TO
SOME EXTENT IN THE LEGAL ARGUMENT CONCERNING NOT ONLY THE
FIBER ANALYSIS, BUT ALSO FOOT TRACK ANALYSIS MISS HINSON
DID, AND IT IS MY RECOLLECTION DURING THAT TIME MR. BUNDY

EXPOUNDED ON THE HOLDING OF THE FRY CASE, WHICH WAS A CASE

“OUT OF THE~~ I BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

CONCERNING SCIENTIFIC ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR EXPERT
TESTIMONY CONCERNING SCIENTIFIC TESTS.
Q. AT THE TRIAL PHASE, COULD YOU GIVE THE COURT YOUR
OBSERVATIONS AS TO MR. BUNDY'S ROLE IN HIS OWN DEFENSE IN
LAKE CITY CASE?
A. IN THE PRE-~TRIAL PHASES OF THE LAKE CITY CASE, MR.
BUNDY, FOR QUITE SOME TIME, ACTED AS HIS OWN COUNSEL PRO
SE. THIS WAS AT HIS REQUEST AND UPON HIS CITATION OF THE
FORETTA DECISION.

a AND DON'T ASK ME HOW TO SPELL THAT. ~

THE THERE CAME A POINT WHEN MR. AFRICANO- WAS

APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MR. BUNDY, AND MR. BUNDY THEN
RECEEDED IN THE PRE-TRIAL PHASES TO THE ROLE OF WHAT I WOULD
SAY CO-COUNSEL, AND PARTICIPATED TO SOME EXTENT IN THE LEGAL
ARGUMENTATION OF VARIOUS MOTIONS, VARIOUS ISSUES, AND IN THE

ACTUAL TRIAL OF THE CASE MR. BUNDY, DURING THE PRESENCE OF,


“St

24

25

DEKLE - DIRECT - DORAN
338

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, NEVER ACTED IN ANY CAPACITY
DURING THE GUILT OR INNOCENT PHASE, NEVER ACTED IN ANY
CAPACITY OTHER THAN CAPACITY OF A DEFENDANT CLIENT, OUT OF
THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY MR. BUNDY CONTINUED ON OCCASION TO
ACT AS QUOTE CO-COUNSEL, AND ENGAGED IN ASSISTING IN SOME
LEGAL ARGUMENTATION.

Q. SO DURING THE TRIAL PHASES, TO BE SPECIFIC, THE

EVIDENCE PHASE, GUILT PHASE, MR. BUNDY NEVER EXAMINED ANY

WITNESSES?
A. NOT DURING THE GUILT OR INNOCENT PHASE, NO, SIR.
Q. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE PHASE, YOU

WENT TO THE PENALTY PHASE?

A. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q. COULD YOU EXPLAIN MR. BUNDY'S ROLE DURING THE PENALTY
PHASE?

A. MR. BUNDY'S TOOK A MUCH MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN THE

PENALTY PHASE. MR. BUNDY ACTED AS HIS OWN COUNSEL, DURING
THE PENALTY PHASE, PRESENTED THE TESTIMONY AND MADE THE

ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE JURY.

Q. DID HE CALL ANY WITNESSES?

A. HE CALLED ONE WITNESS, AND THAT WAS CAROL BOON. 7

Q. WHAT TYPE OF TESTIMONY DID HE HAVE MISS BOON SPEAK TO?
A. HE ATTEMPTED TO HAVE MISS 8OON EXPRESS HER OPINIONS ON

THE PROPRIETY OF THE DEATH PENALTY; AND THAT WAS OBJECTED

TO, OBJECTION WAS SUSTAINED. HE HAD MISS BOON TESTIFY AS TO


RESES

aa

a GS a

i
8
iy

24

25

DEKLE - DIRECT - DORAN
339

WHAT A WONDERFUL PERSON THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY WAS, AND HE
HAD MISS BOON TESTIFY TO HER DESIRE TO MARRY MR. BUNDY AT
WHICH TIME MR. BUNDY PRONOUNCED THEM MAN AND WIFE.

AND THAT PRETTY MUCH CONCLUDED THE DIRECT
EXAMINATION OF MISS BOON.
Q. PRIOR TO THE PENALTY PHASE, DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE

THAT MR. BUNDY WAS GOING TO ATTEMPT THIS MARRIAGE TO MISS

BOON? :
A. I HAD A KNOWLEDGE MR. SUNDY WAS GOING TO ATTEMPT MARRY
MISS BOON. NO IDEA HE WAS GOING TO DO IT IN THE PENALTY
PHASE OF THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER TRIAL.

Q. WHAT WAS YOUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE BACKGROUND
OF HIS DESIRE TO MARRY HER?

A. MR. BUNDY COMPLAINED TO JUDGE JOPLIN SHORTLY BEFORE
THE TRIAL, PENALTY PHASE TRIAL THAT HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF
ATTEMPTING TO MARRY MISS BOON, THAT THE SHEFIFFS DEPARTMENT
WAS NOT GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO HAVE A BLOOD TEST SO THAT HE
COULD COMPLETE ALL PRE-REQUISITS TO THE CONSUMATION OF THE
MARRIAGE, AND REQUESTED THAT JUDGE JOPLIN ORDER THE SHERIFF
TO ALLOW HIM TO HAVE THAT SLOOD TEST, AND JUDGE JOPLIN DID
80. see - ee -

Q. YOU STATE YOU WERE NOT AWARE THAT HE WAS GOING TO
ATTEMPT TO ACCOMPLISH THE MARRIAGE DURING THE PENALTY PHASE?
A. NO, SIR. -

Q. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE JUST BRIEFLY HOW THIS MARRIAGE

I


24

25

DEKLE - DIRECT ~ DORAN
340

CEREMONY TOOK PLACE?
A. WELL, DURING MR. BUNDY'S DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MISS
BOON, HE ASKED HER IF SHE WANTED TO MARRY HIM. SHE SAID SHE
DID. HE SAID HE WANTED TO MARRY HER, ASKED HER IF SHE TOOK
HIM AS HER HUSBAND. SHE SAID SHE DID. AND THEN HE
PRONOUNCED THEM MAN AND WIFE. 7

LATER FOUND OUT THERE WAS A NOTARY PUBLIC SEATED
IN THE ROOM OF THE COURTROOM, THEN FILLED OUT THE NECESSARY

PAPERWORK TO HAVE THEM LEGALLY MARRIED.

QO. WHAT ELSE DID MR. BUNDY DO DURING THE PENALTY PHASE OF
THE CASE? 7 oO
A. HE ARGUED THE FINAL ARGUMENT TO THE JURY DURING THE

PENALTY PHASE; AND HE ARGUED MATTERS IN MITIGATION BEFORE
THE BENCH AT THE ACTUAL SENTENSING ON FEBRUARY 12TH.

MR. DORAN: IF COULD APPROACH THE WITNESS?

BY MR. DORAN:
Q. MR. DEKLE, I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT HAS 8EEN MARKED FOR
IDENTIFICATION AS STATES EXHIBIT NUMBER THREE, AND ASK IF
YOU RECOGNIZE IT?
A. YES, SIR. THIS IS AN EMPTY VIDEO CASSETTE CASE THAT IS
INITIALED BY ME, AND DATED TWELVE FOUR FOURTEEN ‘87, AND
THAT AT THE TIME I INITIALED IT, A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLACED IN
IT, THAT ALSO BORE MY INITIALS AND DATE OF TWELVE FOURTEEN
"87. AND THAT VIDEOTAPE WAS A VIDEOTAPE OF MR. BUNDY'S

ARGUMENT TO JUDGE JOPLING CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF THE


—
lan

aoe

“EO

et

ae

24

25

DEKLE - DIRECT - DORAN

341
DEATH PENALTY IN HIS CASE.
Q. WOULD YOU READ THE LABLE, PLEASE?
A. THE LABLE SAYS TED BUNDY ORLANDO, GIVING STATEMENT

BEFORE SENTENCING. TED BUNDY READING OF INDICTMENT. 1
DIDN'T VIEW TED BUNDY READING OF THE INDICTMENT ON THE
TAPE. THE ONLY THING I VIEWED WAS THE SENTENCING HEARING.

MR. DORAN: I HAVE REMOVED FROM THE VIDEO TAPE
MACHINE. A CARTRIDGE-WHICH I PLACED IN THERE DURING THE - -
BREAK.

MR. DEKLE, I HAND YOU THAT CARTRIDGE. DO YOU HAVE

YOUR INITIALS ON IT?

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. MY INITIALS ANO DATE TWELVE
FOURTEEN ‘87 IS ALSO ON IT. MY HANDWRITING.

MR. DORAN: I WOULO LIKE TO PLAY THIS TAPE AND I
REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT THIS TAPE IS THE TAPE THAT GOES
WITH THIS CASSETTE. -

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LOWER THE LIGHTS.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR~—

MR. DORAN: I CAN MOVE THIS AROUND.

MR. COLEMAN: LET ME MAKE A STATEMENT FOR THE
RECORD. ae . ~ 7

WE HAVE NOT SEEN THE TAPE, BUT THE STATE HAS MADE
A REPRESENTATION TO ME ABOUT WHAT IS ON IT. AND BASED ON
THAT I DON'T OBJECT TO IT BEING PLAYED.

MR. DORAN: I WOULD POINT OUT I REPRESENTED MR.


a

24

25

DEKLE ~ DIRECT 7 DORAN
Pov VBR ow yt 342
COLEMAN WOULDABE INTRODUCING THIS TAPE IN EVIDENCE AT THIS

TIME:
( AT THIS TIME TAPE IS PLAYED. )

MR. DORAN: TAPE CONTINUES, YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER
FOR PURPOSES OF OUR DEMONSTRATION WE WOULD LIKE TO END IT.
IT SIMPLY GOES INTO THE SENTENCING PHASE.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO
THEJADMISSION OF THAT PORTION OF THE TAPE INTO EVIDENCE. or

DON'T KNOW WHAT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES THEY INTENDED TO CALL,

BUT IF IT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING THE TAPE INTO
EVIDENCE, THEN I HAVE NO OBJECTION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. DORAN: THAT'S VERY KIND OF COUNSEL. I WOULD
LIKE TO-- WE HAVE AN EXPERT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT.
BY MR. DORAN:
Q. LET ME ASK, MR. DEKLE. 0O YOU RECOGNIZE THE SPEAKERS

ON THAT TAPE?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY REVOWED THAT TAPE?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. WHEN WAS THAT? - - a
A. THAT WAS LAST NIGHT. ,

Q. WHO WERE THE TWO SPEAKERS?

A. THE FIRST SPEAKER WAS MR. BUNDY. SECOND SPEAKER WAS

JUDGE JOPLING.


24

25

DEKLE - DIRECT ~ DORAN

343
Q. AND DO YOU RECALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THAT
PRESENTATION YOU JUST SAW?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. WHAT WERE THEY?
A. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PRESENTATION WERE

THE JUDGE JOPLING HAD JUST ASKED MR. BUNDY IF HE HAD ANY
REASON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD 8E ADJUDICATED OF THE

GUILTY SENTENCE PROVIDED BY LAW.

QO. THAT WAS DURING THE--
A. DURING THE SENTENCING HEARING ON FEBRUARY 12TH.
Q. AND WHAT YOU JUST VIEWED, STATES COMPOSIT EXHIBIT

THREE, IS THAT A GENERALLY ACCURATE RELIABLE TRANSMISSION OF

THE EVENTS: THAT OCCURRED THAT DAY?

A. YES, SIR. THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY CORRECT.

Q. WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT TAPE THAT YOU NOTICED

THAT WAS OUT OF ORDER?

A. AS I RECALL I THINK THE FIRST FEW REMARKS MR. BUNDY

MADE WERE CUT OFF OF THE TAPE AND WERE NOT SHOWN. AND THERE

WERE TWO OR THREE, POSSIGLY FOUR GLITCHES IN THE TAPE IN

WHICH BRIEF PORTIONS OF HIS PRESENTATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN

OMITTED DUE TO ANAGGING OF THE VIDEOTAPE. IT LOOKED TO ME

AT SOME POINT DURING EITHER THE RECORDING OR RERECORDING.
MR. DORAN: FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, WE REFER

THE COURT TO VOLUME TWO, SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD, THEODORE

ROBERT BUNDY VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NUMBER SEVENTY


24

25

DEKLE ~ DIRECT - DORAN
344

EIGHT DASH ONE SIX NINE C F. THE TRANSCRIPT IS A
SUPPLIMENTAL TRANSCRIPT AND BEGINS ON PAGE, IT BEGINS ON
PAGE NINTEEN OF THAT TRANSCRIPT. AND RUNS THROUGH PAGE
TWENTY NINE.

BY MR. DORAN:
Q. MR. DEKLE, REGARDING THE PRESENTATION WE JUST VIEWED,
HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE MR. BUNDYS PRESENTATION AND SPEAKING

MANNER WITH OTHER OPPORTUNITIES YOU HAD TO VIEW HIM DURING

THE PREPARATION OF THE TRIAL IN LAKE CITY CASE?

A. THE MANNERISMS, SPEECH PATTERN, ARTICULATION WAS
PRETTY MUCHAS MR. BUNDY WAS THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE
PREPARATION FOR TRIAL, THE PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND DURING
THE TRIAL. VERY ARTICULATE INDIVIDUAL WHO COULD EXPRESS
HIMSELF VERY WELL, AND DID SO ON NUMEROUS OCCASION.

Q. WERE THE MANNERS THAT WE JUST SAW DISCUSSED CONCERNING
MR. BUNODY'S ARGUMENTS, RELEVANT TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE?

A. MR. BUNDY DID A GOOD JOB OF POINTING OUT THE
WEEKNESSES IN THE TESTIMONY OF MISS JACKIE MOORE, AND ALSO
WEEKNESSES IN THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN FARRAT, ANDY ANDERSON,

AND MADE ONE PASSING REMARK TO A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED THAT

IT WAS DURING THE SUMMER TIME WHEN IN ACTUALITY THE CRIME

OCCURRED DURING THE WINTER MONTHS OF FEBRUARY, AND HE WAS
REFERRING, ALTHOUGH HE DIDN'T NAME THE PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL, TO A CROSSING GUARD AT LAKE CITY JUNIOR HIGH

SCHOOL, AND HE OF COURSE POINTED OUT THE MOST GLAREING


DEKLE ~- DIRECT - DORAN
345

WITNESSES IN THAT PARTICULAR WITNESSES TESTIMONY, THAT BEING
THE FACT THAT WITNESS TESTIFIED IT WAS SUMMER TIME WHEN IN
FACT IT WAS FEBRUARY.

Q. DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, DID YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE MR. BUNDY COMMUNICATE WITH HIS

ATTORNEYS DURING THE TRIAL?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. COULD YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF THAT COMMUNICATION?
A. THE ONE THAT WILL PROBABLY BE FOR EVER ETCHED IN MY

MEMORY AS FAR AS COMMUNICATION WITH HIS COUNSEL INVOLVED A
MISSTATEMENT BY A WITNESS WHO WE CALLED, AND WHICH THE
WITNESS BLURTED OUT SOMETHING THAT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
SAYING DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, AND THAT WAS A

REFERENCE TO THE CHI OMEGA MURDER CASE, AND AT THAT POINT

om

KNEW THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO RECEIVE A MOTION OF SOME
DESCRIPTION FROM THE DEFENSE TABLE, SO I TURNED TO THE
DEFENSE TASLE TO LOOK AND SEE WHICH ONE OF THEM SPRANG TO
THEIR FEET TO MAKE THE OBJECTION, AND AS I TURNED TO LOOK I
SAW MR. BUNDY ELBOWING I BELIEVE VIC AFRICANO AND WHISPERING

VERY LOUDLY OBJECT, OBJECT, THAT'S IMPROPER.

Q. LET'S GO BACK-~
A. OF COURSE HE WAS CORRECT.
Q. LET'S GO BACK FOR A MOMENT TO THE PENALTY PHASE IN

FRONT OF THE JURY.

I WANT TO TALK TO YOU FOR MOMENT A80UT YOUR


24

25

DEKLE - DIRECT - DORAN
346

EXPERIENCES AS A PROSECUTOR AND DEFENDER IN CAPITAL CASES.
IN YOUR OPINION IS IT A VALID STRATEGY TO ATTEMPT
TO HUMANIZE YOUR CLIENT IN A PENALTY PHASE?
A. THAT'S A TACTIC EMPLOYED BY DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN THE
LITIGATION OF NOT ONLY CAPITAL CASES, BUT ALL SORTS.OF
CASES, ESPECIALLY IN CAPITAL CASES, AND AT THE TIME MR.
BUNDY PREPARED AND PRESENTED HIS DEFENSE ON THE PENALTY
PHASE THERE WAS A KIND OF CURRENT THEORY AMONG DEFENSE ~~
ATTORNEYS AT THAT TIME THAT IF YOU HAD A DEFENDANT WHO WAS
VERY ARTICULATE AND EXPRESSED HIMSELF VERY WELL, AND WAS
PRESENTABLE AS FAR AS LOOKS WERE CONCERNED, THAT YOU OUGHT
TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER ALLOWING HIM TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE
AND ARGUMENT DURING THE PENALTY PHASE, IN ORDER TO GIVE HIM
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH A RAPPORT WITH THE JURY,
HUMANIZE HIM TO THE JURY, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE JURY WOULD
BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISINCLINED TO VOTE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY
BECAUSE THIS PERSON WHO LOOKED SO NICE AND SPOKE SO WELL AND
INTERACTED WITH THEM DURING THE PENALTY PHASE, THERE WOULD
JUST BE A PSYCOLOGICAL IMPEDIMENT TO VOTE HIM FOR THE DEATH

PENALTY.


24

25

DEKLE-DIRECT-DORAN

347
BY MR. DORAN:
Q. WHAT IF ANYTHING HUMANIZED MR. BUNDY BY HIS MARRIAGE
TO MISS BOONE?
A. THE FIRST THING THAT SPRANG IN MY MIND WHEN THEY
CONSUMMATED THE MARRIAGE WAS THAT THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT
DEFENSE PLOY TO THEN TURN AROUND TO THE JURY AND ARGUE
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SENTENCE THIS MAN TO DEATH ON HIS
WEDDING DAY, ARE YOU, WHICH OF COURSE IS A KIND OF A TWO
EDGED SWORD, MIGHT CUT BOTH WAYS, BUT MIGHT BE A CALCULATED
RISK MIGHT BE WORTH TAKING.
Q. IN THE CONTEXT OF MR. BUNDY'S CASE, WHAT TYPE OF
AGGRAVATING FACTORS WERE EVIDENT AT THE TIME OF THE
SENTENCING PHASE?
A. AT THE TIME OF THE SENTENCING PHASE MR. BUNDY HAD
PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE WHICH UNDER FLORIDA
LAW IS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR. AT THE TIME OF THE PENALTY
PHASE MR. BUNDY HAD A CONVICTION FOR I BELIEVE IT WAS
KIDNAPPING OF KIMBERLY DIANE LEACH AND THERE HAD ALSO BEEN
EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL BATTERY PERPETRATED ON KIMBERLY DIANE
LEACH BY MR. BUNDY, AND MURDERS COMMITTED DURING THE COURSE
OF KIDNAPPING. AND SEXUAL BATTERY, THAT'S AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR MURDERS AND THAT WAS ARGUED TO THE JURY.
THERE WERE OTHERS THAT WERE ARGUED TO THE JURY,
BUT I CAN'T RECALL THEM RIGHT AT THIS TIME. THE ACTUAL

PRESENTATION OF THE ARGUMENT IN THAT PHASE WAS HANDLED BY

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

DEKLE-DIRECT-DORAN

348
MR. BLAIR.
Q. TO YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE, WERE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
DEFENSE TEAM, MR. KENNEDY, MR. AFRICANO, MR. THOMPSON, AWARE
OF THE MARRIAGE ATTEMPT?
A, MR. KENNEDY TOLD ME HE WAS AWARE OF THE MARRIAGE
ATTEMPT. I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER DISCUSSED IT WITH MR.
AFRICANO OR MR. THOMPSON, BUT MR. KENNEDY TOLD ME THAT HE
WAS THE FIRST RECRUIT TO BE NOTARY PUBLIC TO ACTUALLY SIGN
THE NECESSARY PAPERWORK AND THAT HE, I THINK PRELIMINARILY
AGREED TO DO SO, BUT THEN GOT COLD FEET AND DECIDED NOT TO
DO IT, THEY HAD TO RECRUIT ANOTHER NOTARY PUBLIC.
Q. DID EITHER MR. AFRICANO OR MR. THOMPSON APPEAR

SURPRISED WHEN THIS TACTIC WAS TAKEN, WHEN THE MARRIAGE WAS

TAKEN?
A. NO, SIR.
Q. DID YOU FIND THAT THE TACTIC OF ATTEMPTING TO PERFORM

A MARRIAGE WAS EXTRAORDINARILY BIZARRE GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF

THIS CASE?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. WHY NOT?

A. IN THE CONTEXT oF MR. BUNDY'S CASE, THERE HAD BEEN ALL

SORTS OF UNUSUAL THINGS THAT HAD OCCURRED FROM THE BEGINNING
TO THE END AND THAT WAS UNUSUAL, BUT NOT BIZARRE.
Q. TURNING FOR A MOMENT TO THE ARTICLE WE JUST VIEWED,

MR. BUNDY'S CLOSING ARGUMENT TO JUDGE JOPLING, WAS THAT A

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

o
NA

349
LEGITIMATE TYPE OF ARGUMENT STRATEGY TO BE EMPLOYED AT THAT
TIME?
A. THAT WAS AN ARGUMENT STRATEGY THAT I HAVE HEARD OTHER
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS EMPLOY IN THE PRESENTATION OF PENALTY
PHASE MATTERS TO THE JURY.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER REFERRED TO THE STRATEGY AS THE
WHIMSICAL DOUBT THEORY?
A. I HAVEN'T.
Q. HAVE YOU HEARD IT-CALLED BY ANY. OTHER NAME, BEEN GIVEN
A MONIKER AS FAR AS -- :
A. NONE THAT I CARE TO REPEAT IN COURT.
Q. MR. DEKLE, HAVE YOU EVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW
AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR OTHER

INTOXICATING DRUGS?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

A. NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.

Q. MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED? -

A. THAT MIGHT BE PUSHING THE OUTSIDE LIMIT, BUT IN COURT

CONTEXT I HAVE VIEWED HALF A DOZEN TO A DOZEN PERSONS UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AND NARCOTICS. IN SOCIAL
SITUATIONS AND IN BUSINESS SITUATIONS OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM,

INVESTIGATIONS AND WHATNOT, I HAVE HAD OCCASION TO VIEW I

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


fn

bse]

“SITUATION, THOSE TWO SITUATIONS?

350
DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL,
MANY. QUITE POSSIBLY IN EXCESS OF TWO HUNDRED.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYONE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF

ALCOHOL IN COURT?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. HOW MANY TIMES?

A. I CAN RECALL FIVE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

Q. WHAT WOULD BE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK

FOR TO DETERMINE IF SOMEONE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF.

ALCOHOL?
MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT.
THIS IS IRRELEVANT. ~
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
A. SLURRED SPEECH, BLOODSHOT EYES, ODOR OF ALCOHOL, THE
DISHEVELED APPEARANCE, INABILITY TO WALK, MOTOR

DISCOORDINATION, THAT SORT OF THING. 7

Q. MR. DEKLE, IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONSUMING
ALCOHOL AND BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL TO THE
EXTENT THAT YOUR NORMAL FACILITIES ARE IMPAIRED?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. AND COULD YOU DISTINGUISH, {F PRESENTED WITH THAT

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. IT
SOUNDS LIKE HE'S TRYING TO HAVE THIS WITNESS GIVE EXPERT

TESTIMONY ON WHETHER SOME INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN DRINKING. HE

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

[—

[ BEAL EDI RDOLTDORAN
351

HASN'T EVEN ESTABLISHED THE FOUNDATION THAT WOULD PERMIT HIM

a

( C 2 TO EVEN TESTIFY.

3 THE COURT: WELL, WE HAD A LOT OF TESTIMONY
| 4 YESTERDAY ABOUT VODKA AND V-8 JUICE, I'LL OVERRULE THE
a 5 OBJECTION.
6 MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK ALSO IT'S COMMON
7 KNOWLEDGE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WITH LAYMAN'S EXPERIENCE COULD
8 OFFER OPINIONS, I'LL MOVE ON.

9/. BY MR. DORAN:

10 Q. MR. DEKLE, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU OBSERVE THEODORE

ll BUNDY DURING THIS TRIAL, THE ACTUAL TRIAL?

12 A. DURING THE ACTUAL TRIAL?
13 Q. YES, SIR.
( 14 A. I OBSERVED HIM ON A DAILY BASIS FOR SEVERAL HOURS A

|

' 15 DAY FROM EARLY JANUARY RIGHT ON THROUGH FEBRUARY 12. NOW,
E 16 THERE WAS A BREAK BETWEEN THE PENALTY PHASE ON THE NINTH AND
t

a 17 THE ACTUAL SENTENCING ON THE TWELFTH THAT I DIDN'T SEE HIM.
i
18 Q.

19 THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR OTHER INTOXICANTS?

DID YOU AT ANY TIME BELIEVE THAT MR. BUNDY WAS UNDER

i 20 A. MR. BUNDY NEVER EXHIBITED IN MY PRESENCE IN THE

21 COURTROOM OR OTHERWISE ANY INDICATION THAT HE WAS UNDER THE
22 INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL TO ANY EXTENT.

23 Q. MR. DEKLE, IF AN INDIVIDUAL HAD PERHAPS A SINGLE

24 COCKTAIL AT LUNCH, THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY EXHIBIT ITSELF

25 AS AN INTOXICATED STATE, WOULD IT?

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

352
A. NO, SIR.
Q. DO YOU, WITHOUT GIVING NAMES, HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN ANY
ATTORNEYS WHO TENDED TO HAVE A COCKTAIL AT LUNCH DURING
TRIAL?
A. YES, SIR. :
Q. MR. DEKLE, DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD FROM MARCH OF 1978

THAT YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THEODORE ROBERT
BUNDY, DID YOU BVER SEE ANY INDICATION THAT MR. BUNDY WAS
EXCESSIVELY HYPERACTIVE IN ACTIVITY?

A. NO, SIR. IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, HE DIDN'T
BOUNCE AROUND THE ROOM AND TURN CARTWHEELS OR DO
CALISTHENICS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HE APPEARED TO BE A
NORMAL ACTIVITY LEVEL ON THE OCCASIONS THAT I SAW HIM.

Q. DID HE EVER PACE BACK AND FORTH?

A. IF I RECALL, SOMETIMES DURING ‘THE DEPOSITIONS IN
TALLAHASSEE, I THINK HE GOT UP AND WALKED AROUND THE ROOM A
TIME OR TWO.

Q. WAS IT, IN YOUR VIEW, EXCESSIVE?

A. IT WAS THE TYPE OF THING THAT YOU DO AFTER SITTING FOR
A LONG TIME, INTERVIEWING A WITNESS, YOU WOULD GET UP AND
STRETCH YOUR LEGS. :

Q. DID YOU YOURSELF EVER PACE OR GET UP AND STRETCH YOUR

LEGS DURING THIS TRIAL?
A. I DID QUIT QUITE A BIT OF PACING DURING THE TRIAL.

Q. YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED MR. BUNDY'S SPEAKING

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


——_ a

Es 2]

7 een

24

25

DEKLE~DIRECT-DORAN

353
ABILITY. DID YOU EVBR NOTICE MR. BUNDY SPEAKING IN
EXTREMELY RAPID FASHION?
A. NO, SIR.
Q. DID HE EVER SLUR HIS WORDS?
A. NOP THAT I RECALL.
Q. DID HE EVER RUN HIS WORDS OR SENTENCES TOGETHER?
A. NO, SIR.
Q. DO YOU EVER RECALL HIM SPEAKING INCOHERENT FRAGMENTS?
A. NO, SIRS _ - - :
Q. DID YOU EVER HEAR HIM MAKE UP WORDS, USE MAKE UP
WORDS? -
A. NO, SIR.
Q. DID YOU EVER HEAR HIM RHYME SENTENCES OR RHYME WORDS
BACK TO BACK?
A. THERE IS ONE PLACE DURING THE PENALTY PHASE WHERE THE,

MR. BUNDY MADE REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE EVIDENCE
DIDN'T COME FROM THE WITNESS STAND, IT CAME FROM THE NEWS

STAND, AND THOSE WORDS RHYMED.

Q. THAT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT?

A. THAT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF MAKING ARGUMENT TO JUDGE
_JOPLING. BS

Q. THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU CAN RECALL?

A. THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME THAT I CAN RECALL. OF COURSE,

THAT'S AN ACCEPTED ORATORICAL AND FORENSIC TECHNIQUE WHEN

YOU'RE MAKING ARGUMENTS TO MAKE POINTS THAT EITHER ELITERATE

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

354
(PH) OR RHYME.
Q. FROM YOUR OBSERVATIONS, DID MR. BUNDY EVER APPEAR TO
LOSE CONCENTRATION LET'S SAY DURING THE DEPOSITIONS OR
MOTION HEARINGS?
A. ON ONE OCCASION I RECALL MR. BUNDY BECOMING DISTRESSED
AND APPEARED TO HAVE LOST HIS TRAIN OF THOUGHT WHEN A
WITNESS TESTIFIED TO SOME FORENSIC SCIENCE THAT WAS PRETTY
DAMAGING TO MR. BUNDY'S CASE AND HE APPEARED TO BECOME
DISCONCERTED AND LOST HIS TRAIN .OF THOUGHT AT THAT POINT,
THAT SORT OF TESTIMONY WAS RATHER UNEXPECTED.
Q. DID HE RECOVER?
A. HE WAS ABLE TO RECOVER, YES, AND LATER TO POINT ouUT
THE WEAKNESSES THAT HE PERCEIVED IN THAT SORT OF TESTIMONY.
Q. DURING THIS PERIOD, DID MR. BUNDY EVER APPEAR TO YOU
TO BE OVERLY TIRED OR EXTREMELY EXHAUSTED IN APPEARANCE?
A. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MR. BUNDY APPEARED TOWARDS THE END
OF THE TRIAL I THINK WHILE THE JURY WAS OUT DELIBERATING THE
VERDICT, APPEARED TO BE FATIGUED. AT THAT POINT WE ALL
WERE.
Q. MR. DEKLE, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH FLORIDA RULE OF

PROCEDURE 3.211?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT RULE?
A. THAT HAS TO DO WITH CRITERIA, IF I'M CORRECT, FOR

COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL.

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

ia
ce

24

25

355

Q. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT RULE WITH YOU?
A. YES, SIR. YOU PROVIDED ME A COPY OF THE RULE AND I
HAVE IT IN MY POCKET.
Q. WOULD YOU TAKE IT OUT, PLEASE?

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO
THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. THE STATE INDICATED AT THE OUTSET
OF THIS TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS TRYING TO QUALIFY THIS WITNESS
AS AN EXPERT TO EXPRESS AN OPINION, I ASSUME ABOUT MR.
BUNDY'S COMPETENCY, BUT ALL HE IS .IS A FACT WITNESS .. HE 1s
Nor A PSYCHIATRIST AND I THINK IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR
THIS WITNESS TO ATTEMPT AS AN EXPERT TO EVALUATE MR. BUNDY'S
MENTAL COMPETENCY DURING THAT TRIAL, AND THAT APPEARS TO BE
WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO HERE.

.THE COURT: THE QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH A FLORIDA
RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REGARDING STANDARD OF COMPETENCY,
RULE 3.211. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED TO THE LAST QUESTION,

MR. DORAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. DORAN:
Q. MR. DEKLE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO REFER TO RULE
3.211, SUBSECTION A ONE, ARE YOU WITH ME?
A. YES, SIR, I HAVE If BEFORE ME.
Q. MR. DEKLE, BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS, WAS
THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY ABLE 0 APPRECIATE THE CHARGES AGAINST
HIM IN THE LAKE CITY CASE?

MR. COLEMAN: I'M GOING TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

ee ME EU TAIN

356

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, WE WOULD
CITE CASE OF UNITED STATES VERSUS MAKRIS, 535 F.2D 899, THE
OLD FIFTH CIRCUIT, 1976. IN THIS CASE THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
HELD THAT THE RECOLLECTION OF THE NON-EXPERTS INCLUDING THE
OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
INTERACT WITH THE DEFENDANT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD OF
TIME MAY IN SOME INSTANCES PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT BASIS UPON
WHICH A FACT FINDER MAY REST HIS. DETERMINATION THAT EVEN A
BELATED DETERMINATION WILL BE ACCURATE. AND WE WOULD
PROFFER THAT THIS WITNESS AS AN OBSERVER AND AS AN EXPERT IN
THIS CASE WOULD BE USEFUL TO THE FACT FINDER AND WE WOULD
ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW IT.

“THE COURT: THAT'S FINE, HE CAN GIVE HIS
OBSERVATIONS, BUT YOU JUST WENT RIGHT TO THE ELEMENT ISSUE
AND SAID IS HE ABLE, COMPETENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING
ON. I'M SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, ALL RIGHT.

BY MR. DORAN: -
Q. MR. DEKLE, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE MR.

BUNDY DISCUSS THE NATURE OF THE RANGE OF PENALTIES IN THIS

CASE?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. AND WHEN WAS THAT? - -

A. HE DISCUSSED THAT, I'M PRETTY SURE, DURING THE

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

ee

Es Prag

as a

| ae

357

DEPOSITION PHASE WHEN I SPENT MANY HOURS WITH HIM AND WE HAD
OCCASION BETWEEN WITNESSES TO TALK ABOUT NUMEROUS THINGS. I
HEARD TAPES OF HIM DISCUSSING THE PENALTY WITH INVESTIGATORS
PATCHETT AND BODIFORD AND CHAPMAN DURING POST ARREST
INTERVIEWS I HEARD HIM DISCUSSING THE PENALTY.

DURING THE MILLARD FARMER HEARING IN WHICH HE
URGED ON THE COURT THAT GIVEN THE SEVERE NATURE OF THE
PENALTY AGAINST HIM AND IN THE PROSECUTION AGAINST HIM, THAT
THE JUDGE OUGHT TO..GO.THE EXTRA MILE SINCE THIS WAS THE =
ULTIMATE PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW, THAT HE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE ELIGIBLE DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO HIM AND HE FELT THE
ULTIMATE DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO HIM WAS MR. MILLARD FARMER.
Q. AND WOULD THOSE OBSERVATIONS CARRY OVER TO THE ACTUAL
CHARGE OF .FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND THE OTHER CHARGES?
A. YES, SIR. MR. BUNDY DURING CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD
WITH HIM IN THE DEPOSITION PHASE AND ALSO I THINK DURING
SOME PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS WAS ABLE TO DISCUSS THE ELEMENTS
OF THE CRIME OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER, THE ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME OF KIDNAPPING, AND EXHIBITED AN UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE
ELEMENTS.
Q. WERE YOU ABLE TO OBSERVE MR. BUNDY DEALING WITH THE
COURT OR DEALING WITH YOURSELF REGARDING THE ADVERSARIAL
PROCESS?

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO

THIS. HE'S DOING THE SAME THING. IN FACT, HE'S SIMPLY

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

24

25

READING DOWN NOW THE SUBPARTS OF 3.211 A ONE.

THE COURT: THE QUESTIONS THAT HE ASKED NOW ASK
FOR OBSERVATIONS WHICH THIS WITNESS CAN GIVE. OVERRULED.

MR. DORAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
A. MR. BUNDY WAS VERY AWARE OF MY ROLE AS PROSECUTOR IN
THE CASE AND EVEN IN UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF DEFENSE
COUNSEL AND WAS ABLE TO DISCUSS THE ROLE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL
PARTICULARLY AT THE MILLARD FARMER HEARING. HE WAS ABLE TO
DISCUSS IT AT THE TIME HE OFFERED HIS PLEA, THE ROLE THAT HE
FELT THAT THE DEFENSE COUNSEL over TO BE PERFORMING, THAT
THEY WERE NOT PERFORMING, AND IN PROPER FASHION.

AT THE CLOSE OF THE TRIAL MR. BUNDY MADE A
STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELT THAT MR. AFRICANO, SO
FAR AS HE WAS AWARE, FROM WHAT HE HAD OBSERVED, HAD DONE AN
EXCELLENT JoB OF DEFENDING HIM. HE DID QUALIFY THAT
STATEMENT BY SAYING HE DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING THAT MR.
AFRICANO HAD DONE AND MR. AFRICANO MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING
OUT OF HIS PRESENCE OR HE MIGHT BE UNAWARE OF SOMETHING MR.
AFRICANO HAD DONE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS THAN
COMPETENT. BUT HE SAID BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT HE HAD
SEEN, MR. AFRICANO HAD DONE A COMPETENT JOB.
Q. ALONG THAT LINE, WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR MR. BUNDY OR
MR. AFRICANO IN A COURT HEARING DISCUSS THEIR DEALINGS AS -TO
FACTUAL MATTERS IN THE CASE?

A. YES, SIR. MR. AFRICANO AND MR. BUNDY WERE ~~

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


aaeaeae eee ae eee

359

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO
THAT BECAUSE TO THE EXTENT THAT HE DID IN FACT HEAR MR.
BUNDY DISCUSS WITH MR. AFRICANO PERTINENT FACTS, THEN HE
OVERHEARD CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, I'LL CLARIFY THE
QUESTION.
BY MR. DORAN:

Q. MR. DEKLE, IN OPEN COURT IN FRONT OF JUDGE JOPLING DID

- YOU EVER HEAR THEM DISCUSS THE FACTS OR THE EVIDENCE. OF -THE

CASE?

A, YES, SIR, HEY SOMETIMES KIND OF DOUBLE TEAMED US ON
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING VARIOUS THINGS AND MR. AFRICANO WOULD
MAKE SOME ARGUMENT, MR. BUNDY WOULD MAKE SOME ARGUMENT
CONCERNING THE SAME SORT OF ISSUE. AND MR. BUNDY AT ALL
TIMES THAT I CAN RECALL MADE VERY COGENT ARGUMENTS
CONCERNING THE FACTS, THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF
VARIOUS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE.

Q. YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT MR. BUNDY TOOK A NUMBER
OF DEPOSITIONS? :

A. YES, SIR.

Q. WAS HE ABLE TO PUT FORWARD QUESTIONS TO THE

INDIVIDUALS REGARDING THE FACTS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE CASE?

A. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN THIS FASHION. I HAVE
SEEN PRO SE DEFENDANTS IN A NUMBER OF CASES EXAMINE AND

CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES. MR. BUNDY AS A PRO SE DEFENDANT

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

360
EXAMINING AND CROSS EXAMINING WITNESSES WAS HEADS ABOVE ANY
OTHER PRO SE DEFENDANT THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN IN THE
EXAMINATION AND CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES OR COMPARED
FAVORABLY WITH MANY ATTORNEYS WHOM I HAVE SEEN CONDUCT
EXAMINATIONS AND CROSS EXAMINATIONS.
Q. OTHER THAN THE INCIDENT WE HAVE DISCUSSED EARLIER
REGARDING THE CHALLENGE TO THE POTENTIAL JURYMAN, DID YOU
EVER SEE MR. BUNDY YELL OR SCREAM OR HAVE ANY OTHER

INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR -IN THE COURTROOM? - ce

A. IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE TRIAL, NO.

Q. IN FRONT OF THE JURY?

A. IN FRONT OF THE JURY, NO. :

Q. WE HAVE REVIEWED STATE'S EXHIBIT THREE WHICH YOU HAVE

TESTIFIED.IS THE CLOSING ARGUMENT MR. BUNDY MADE TO JUDGE
JOPLING. LET ME JUST REASK YOU, WERE THE MATTERS WHICH HE
SPOKE TO MATTER RELEVANT TO THE TRIAL, FACTUALLY RELEVANT TO
THE TRIAL?

A. THEY WERE MATTERS THAT WERE, LIKE I SAID PREVIOUSLY,
PRETTY ADEQUATE, ACCURATE DEFENSE TYPE ASSESSMENT OF THE
VARIOUS TESTIMONIES THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED AND EVIDENCE
THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED, AND HE MADE ARGUMENTS CONCERNING
THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY PHASE OF THE TRIAL TAT I WOULD
EXPECT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO MAKE IN MUCH THE SAME LANGUAGE
THAT I EXPECT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO MAKE THEM IN. -

Q. DID MR. BUNDY UNDERTAKE ACTIVITIES WHICH INDICATED TO

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER


24

25

361

YOU THAT HE WAS MOTIVATED TO HELP HIMSELF DURING THE TRIAL?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. WHAT WERE THEY?
A. THE ONE I REFERRED TO EARLIER WHERE HE ELBOWED MR.

AFRICANO AND WHISPERED TO HIM VERY LOUDLY TO OBJECT, THAT
THAT WAS IMPROPER, WAS EVIDENCE WHICH I, EVIDENCE WHICH: HE
WAS MOTIVATED TO HELP HIMSELF.

THE ACTIVITY THAT THE GOOD BEHAVIOR THAT HE
EXHIBITED IN FRONT OF THE JURY HE DIDN'T ALWAYS EXHIBIT
OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY WAS ACTIVITY THAT WOULD BE
DESIGNED, I THINK, TO CURRY FAVOR WITH THE JURY, AND PRESENT
HIS, PUT HIS BEST FOOT FORWARD TO THE JURY WHO WAS GOING TO
BE DECIDING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DECIDE
THE CASE AGAINST HIM. I COULD GO ON.
Q. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WAS THERE ANY TIME, ANY OTHER
ACTIVITY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE,
IN YOUR MIND, PLANTED A RED FLAG THAT THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY
WAS INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL?
A. IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY DOUBT IN MY MIND MR. THEODORE
ROBERT BUNDY HAD BEEN INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, I WOULD
HAVE SEEN TO IT THAT SUCH A MOTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE

COURT EITHER BY DEFENSE COUNSEL OR MYSELF.

MR. DORAN: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD
TENDER THE WITNESS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

F

24

25

DEKLE~DIRECT~DORAN

UNTIL NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING.

(HEARING RECESSED.)

362

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER

oS) ey

Prey

Pa Ms Fa

PEALE OLRBOL DORAN

363

CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA:

COUNTY OF ORANGE:

WE, ANTHONY ROLLAND AND EMERY TOMPKINS, BEING
UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ORLANDO DIVISION, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT WE WERE AUTHORIZED TO AND DID REPORT IN
SHORTHAND THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT
THEREAFTER OUR SHORTHAND NOTES WERE TRANSCRIBED UNDER OUR
SUPERVISION, AND THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES CONTAIN A TRUE AND
CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN THEREIN.

‘DONE AND SIGNED THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1987,

IN THE CITY OF ORLANDO, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF FLORIDA.

W/) : : “

EMERY C. TOMPKINS ANTHONY ROLLAND

U.S. COURT REPORTERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTER