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

wo

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

Rrcrive

THEODORE ROBERT BUNDY NOV 06 1987

ve DEPT. OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
CRIMINAL DIVISION
LOUIE L. WAINRIGHT.

SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS

CASE# 86-0968 CR-ORL-18

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. KENDALL SHARP, J.

OCTOBR 22, 1387

HEARING

APPEARANCES: .
JAMES E. COLEMAN, JR., ESQ.
POLLY J. NELSON, ESQ.

JOHN BYRON SANDAGE, ESQ.
WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING
2445 M STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 29037
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PETETIONER

MARK MENSER, ESQ.
RICHARD DORAN, ESQ.

JIM YORK, ESQ.

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
THE CAPITOL

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32398
ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT

BEFORE:

LINDA A. TOMPKINS, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER


24

25

DEPUTY CLERK: CASE BEFORE THE COURT IS
CASE NUMBER 86-968 CIVIL ORLANDO 18. THEODORE
ROBERT BUNDY VERSUS LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT.

COUNSELOR FOR THE PETITIONER IDENTIFY
THEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD.

MR. COLEMAN: JIM COLEMAN, ON BEHALF OF
THE PETITIONER.

MS. NELSON: POLLY NELSON, FOR PETITIONER.

MR. SANDAGE: JOHN SANDAGE, FOR THE
PETITIONER.

DEPUTY CLERK: COUSEL FOR THE STATE
IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

MR. MENSER: MARK MENSER, FOR THE STATE OF

FLORIDA.

MR. YORK: JAMES YORK, FOR THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.

MR. DORAN: RICHARD DORAN FOR THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN. WE ARE HERE PERSUANT TO A MANDATE FROM °
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS IN ATLANTA TO
HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING GOING INTO THE
COMPETENCY OF MR. BUNDY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE

WAS SUFFICIENT PRESENT-- WHETHER HE HAD A PRESENT


te

ABILITY TO CONSULT WITH HIS LAWYERS WITH A
REASONABLE DEGREE OF RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING AT
TRIAL AND WHETHER HE HAD A RATIONAL, AS WELL AS
FACTUAL, UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
HIM.

YOU MAY PROCEED.

MR. COLEMAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
FIRST OF ALL WE FILED A MOTION THIS MORNING FOR THE
ADMISSION GF COUNSEL PRO HOC VICE MR. SANDAGE AND I
UNDERSTAND THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION.

YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO RENEW THE
MOTION WE FILED LAST WEEK~-~- ACTUALLY I GUESS LAST
FRIDAY, TO PERMIT MR. BUNDY TO BE EXCUSED FROM
THESE PROCEEDINGS. THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER ON
OCTOBER FOURTEEN REQUIRING HIS PRESENCE. AND THE
PREMISE OF THE ORDER IS THAT MR. BUNDY IS TO BE A
MATERIAL WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN THIS CAUSE. BEYOND
THAT THE ORDER STATES NO OTHER BASIS ON WHICH TO
REQUIRE HIS PRESENCE. THE MOTION THAT WE FILED I
THINK MAKES IT VERY CLEAR AT LEAST IN THE
PETITIONERS CASE MR. BUNDY WILL NOT BE A WITNESS
AND AS FAR AS I KNOW HE WILL NOT BE A WITNESS IN
THE STATES CASE EITHER. FOR THAT REASON THERE'S
CERTAINLY NO PURPOSE FOR HIM TO BE HERE TODAY NOR

ANY PURPOSE TO BE HERE DURING THE PETITIONERS CASE.


24

25)

HE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH HE HAS WAIVED
ANY RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND ALSO HE HAS REQUESTED
TO BE EXCUSED FROM THE PROCEEDINGS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, MR. COLEMAN, AS YOU
KNOW, MERELY WHAT COUNSEL SAYS DOESN'T SEEM TO HOLD
MUCH-- DOESN'T SEEM TO GO VERY FAR WITH SOME OF THE
APPELLATE COURTS IN AS MUCH AS THE REASON WE'RE
HERE TODAY IS THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME CF THE
ATTORNEYS IN THE LOWER COURT DID NOT BRING UP MR.
BUNDY’S COMPETENCY THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE STATED
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ATTORNEYS SAY THAT A PERSON
CAN ALWAYS BRING UP THAT AT ANY TIME AND THAT'S NOT
A WAVERABLE RIGHT. WELL IN THE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION
THIS COURT IS GOING TO REQUIRE MR. BUNDY'S
ATTENDANCE AT ALL OF THESE HEARINGS SO THAT YOU OR
SOMEOTHER ATTORNEY CANNOT AT A LATER TIME PUT THIS
COURT IN A CATCH TWENTY TWO SITUATION BY SAYING
THAT MR. BUNDY WAS NOT PRESENT TO WITNESS ALL OF
THESE PROCEEDINGS. SO THE COURT IS GOING TO
REQUIRE HIS ATTENDANCE AT ALL OF THESE.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT AWARE OF
ANY LEGAL BASIS ON WHICH TO CHALLENGE THESE
PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT PRESENT.

THE COURT: SOMEBODY WILL FIND ONE.

BELIEVE ME. MOTION WILL BE DENIED.


MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, IN APRIL WE
FILED A MOTION FOR AN ORDER FOR THE PAYMENT OF
REASONASLE FEES AND EXPENSES TO RETAIN EXPERTS TO
ASSIST US TO PREPARE FOR THIS HEARING. SHORTLY
AFTER WE FILED A MOTION THE STATE OF FLORIDA FILED
A PETITION IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND FOLLOWING
THAT FILED A PETITION IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT. AS A RESULT OF THAT THIS COURT ISSUED AN
ORDER ON APRIL 15 INDICATING IT FELT IT NO LONGER
HAD JURISDICTION TO ACT ON ANY OF THE MOTIONS THAT
WERE THEN PENDING. WE RENEWED THE MOTION FOR THE
PAYMENT OF FEES AND EXPENSES TO OBTAIN EXPERTS WHEN
THIS CASE WAS RETURNED TO THIS COURT BY THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT. TO DATE THE COURT HAS NOT
ACTED ON THAT MOTION. AND AS WE SET OUT IN THE
ORIGINAL MOTION EN APRIL IT IS ESSENTIAL AND IN
FACT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROCEED WITHOUT THE
ASSISTANCE OF EXPERTS SINCE THE ISSUE HERE HAS TO
DO WITH THE PSYCHOLOGICAL-- THE COMPETENCE OF THE
DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL WHICH REQUIRES

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND REQUIRES ASSISTANCE OF

~ AN EXPERT. THIS MOTION HAS BEEN PENDING SINCE

APRIL. WE. RENEWED IT. AND I WOULD LIKE AND
REQUEST THE COURT RULE ON THE MOTION AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT WILL


oo;

24

25

APPROVE THE STATUTORY FEE AND FILE THE APPROPRIATE
FORMS.

MR. COLEMAN: NOW, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD
LIKE AT THIS TIME TO RENEW THE MOTION THAT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING SE CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 14.

THE COURT: COURT ORDER RULED ON THAT.
IT'S DENIED.

MR. COLEMAN: CAN I AT LEAST STATE FOR THE
RECORD THE BASIS FOR MY REQUEST TO RENEW IT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, SIR.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, IT'S NOT CLEAR
TO US WHAT THE COURT EXPECTS TO HAPPEN TODAY. WE
HAVE NEVER APPEARED SEFORE THIS COURT IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS CASE. WE DION'T APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT
AT THE TIME THAT THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED. WE DIDN'T
APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT IN APRIL WHEN IT WAS
REMANDED 8Y THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND TODAY IS THE
FIRST OPPORTUNITY WE'VE HAD TO APPEAR. WE'VE NOT
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY WITH THE COURT AND WITH THE
STATE TO DISCUSS WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF THIS
HEARING WOULD BE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE
FROM THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT ITS POSITION IS
ON THE ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED. WE HAVE NOT SEEN
ABLE TO IDENTIFY FOR THE COURT OUR VIEW OF THE

ISSUES SO THERE'S SOME FRAME WORK FROM WHICH THE


cm

COURT CAN EVALUATE THE TESTIMONY THAT WILL BE
PRESENTED AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. WE'VE NOT HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETAIN THE EXPERT TO EVALUATE MR.
BUNDY'S COMPETENCY FOLLOWING THE CHI OMEGA TRIAL
EXCEPT IN A GENERAL MANNER THAT WAS DONE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ORIGINAL PETITION. WE FILED
AND &S I INDICATED EARLIER AND THE COURT GRANTED
THE MOTION FOR PAYMENT OF FEES, EXPENSES IN ORDER
TO RETAIN AN EXPERT. IT*S OBVIOUSLY VERY CRITICAL
THAT THAT PREPERATION BE DONE BEFORE THE HEARING
COMMENCES.

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. MR. COLEMAN,
YOU ALREADY STATED IN THIS COURT IN PRIOR MOTION
YOU ALREADY HAD AN EXPERT, YOU ALREADY RETAINED AN
EXPERT; THAT THAT EXPERT WASN’T AVAILABLE THIS

PARTICULAR DAY. SO APPARENTLY YOU'VE ALREADY

RETAINED ONE.

MR. COLEMAN: WE RETAINED AN EXPERT IN

CONNECTION WITH THE CHI OMEGA TRIAL WHO WILL ASSIST

US IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE AS WELL. THE
PURPOSE OF REQUESTING THAT THE EXPENSES OF THE
EXPERT BE PAID IS SO THAT THE EXPERT CAN EVALUATE
THE FACTS THAT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THIS CASE.
WHAT SHE HAS DONE IS TO EVALUATE MR. BUNDY THROUGH

THE END OF THE CHI OMEGA TRIAL. THERE ARE


24

25

ADDITIONAL FACTS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS
TO BE EVALUATED BY THE EXPERT IN ORDER FOR HER TO
PREPARE A REPORT FOR US WITH RESPECT TO LATER
STAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE. AS THE
COURT KNOWS IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THIS CASE IS
RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE CHI OMEGA CASE AT LEAST
THROUGH THE CONVICTION IN THE CHI OMEGA TRIAL. BUT
THERE ARE~- THERE'S EVIDENCE OF MR. BUNDY'S
COMPETENCE THAT RELATES TO THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE
CHI OMEGA TRIAL THAT IS RELEVANT AND HAS TO BSE
EVALUATED BY THIS COURT AND HAS TO BE PRESENTED BY

THE PETITIONER AS PART OF THESE HEARINGS. THAT HAS

NOT BEEN DONE. WE HAVE FILED WITH THE COURT THE

REPORT THAT THE EXPERT PREPARED FOR US AND THAT WE
FILED ON SEPTEMBER 16 IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE. BUT
UNTIL THIS couRT GRANTED THE MOTION TO PAY THE
EXPERT TO PREPARE THE REPORT SEYOND THE END OF THE
CHI OMEGA TRIAL WE WERE NOT ABLE TO PROCEED. IN
ADDITION BECAUSE OF THE PENDANCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE WHICH ARE I THINK THE COURT
IS AWARE, RESULTED IN US FILING A FAIRLY
SUBSTANTIAL PLEADING ON SEPTEMBER 18. THE EXPERTS .
AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE
PERITIONER HAD BEEN QUITE BUSY IN CONNECTION WITH

THESE TWO CASES.


24

25

WE ALSO HAVE HAD INADEQUATE TIME, I
BELIEVE, TO PREPARE FOR A HEARING THAT IS AS
IMPORTANT AS THIS ONE. WE RECEIVED NOTICE INITIALLY
THAT THIS COURT WAS GOING TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON OCTOBER 13, OR WHATEVER MONDAY WAS.
WHICH WAS A HOLIDAY IN WASHINGTON AND I HAPPENED TO
COME INTO MY OFFICE. I HAD SEEN THAT THE COURT
ORDERED A EVIDENTARY HEARING. AT THE TIME THE
COURT INDICATED THAT WHATEVER WAS GOING TO HAPPEN
WAS GOING TO BE-- WAS GOING TO TAKES PLACE WITHIN &
PERIOD OF FIVE HOURS. TWO AND A HALF HOURS EACH
SIDE. WE SOUGHT CLARIFICATION TO DETERMINE EXACTLY
WHAT THE COURT HAD IN MIND. WE THEN FILED A MOTION
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT MOTION THE COURT ISSUED AN
ORDER IN WHICH IT SAID THAT WE WOULD PROCEED TODAY
BUT THAT AT THE END OF TODAY THE HEARING WOULD BE
RECESSED AND THAT WE WOULD BEGIN AGAIN ON DECEMBER
14 AND THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL DECEMBER 17.
AS WE INDICATED THE IN THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SUFFICIENT TIME DECEMBER 14
THROUGH 17 TO HEAR THIS CASE. WE SEE NO REASON WHY
WE OUGHT TO BSE FORCED TO PROCEED WITH WITNESSES
TODAY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I THINK IT'S QUITE
OBVIOUS WE COULDN’T FINISH TODAY EVEN IF WE WERE

PREPARED TO DO SO, THAT THE HEARING WOULD HAVE TO


24

25

BE CONTINUED AND THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE A

DECISION TO CONTINUE IT UNTIL DECEMBER 14. T SEEMS

TO US IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED TIME WE'VE HAD To
PREPARE FOR THIS HEARING THERE'S NO PREJUDICE TO
ANYBODY BY CONTINUING THIS HEARING AND S8EGIN ON
DECEMBER 14 WITH THE PRESENTATIONS OF TESTIMONY. ON
THE OTHER HAND TO REQUIRE US TO PROCEED TODAY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING ON WHATEVER WITNESSES WE ARE
ABLE TO PUT ON TODAY AND THEN TO RECESS UNTIL
DECEMBER 14 GREATLY PREJUDICES THE PETITIONER. It
MEANS WE WILL BE PUTTING ON TESTIMONY THAT HAS NO
CONTEXT, THAT. WE'VE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE
PRE HEARING SRIEF IN ORDER TO INDICATE TO THE COURT
WHAT OUR VIEW OF THE CASE IS SO THE COURT CAN
EVALUATE WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONY IS
THAT IS PRESENTED. WE FEEL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT TO REQUIRE US TO PROCEED WOULD BE PREDUCICAL
TO THE PETITIONER AND WE THINK IT ALSO WOULD
OISRUPT THE GRDERLY PRESENTATIONS OF THE TESTIMONY
WHICH COULD BEGIN ON DECEMBER 14 AND CONCLUDE ON
DECEMBER 17 AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COLEMAN, I'M
INCREDULOUS TO HEAR YOU ARE UNPREPARED. THIS CASE
HAS BEEN DRAGGING ON FOR SEVEN YEARS. YOU ARE THE

ONES, YOURSELVES, WHO'S BROUGHT UP THIS GROUND OF


oo

INCOMPETENCY. IT IS GONE THROUGH THE COURTS UP TO
THE SUPREME COURT FOR AT LEAST THIS ENTIRE YEAR.
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS STATED THAT IT INSTRUCTS
THE DISTRICT COURT TO SCHEDULE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND
CONDUCT THIS HEARING. THE COURT HAS DONE THAT. AND
WE ARE READY TO PROCEED. AND I DO NOT SEE HOW
THERE CAN BE ANY PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY BY STARTING
TODAY AND FINISHING UP IN DECEMBER. THE COURT HAS
A BUSY DOCKET. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY CASE ON THE
COURT'S DOCKET.

MR. COLEMAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR
HONOR. I HOPE THAT THE COURT WILL ALSO BE-- AT
LEAST RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S TRUE FOR- THE PARTIES
INVOLVED HERE AS WELL. WE HAVE SEEN INVOLVED IN
PREPARING PLEADINGS IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE AND
BETWEEN THAT AND THIS CASE WE TRIED ALSO TO CONDUCT
THE REMAINDER OF THE PRACTICE THAT WE HAVE. THIS
IS NOT THE ONLY LAW THAT WE PRACTICE. WE FEEL THAT
THERE'S NO PURPOSE SERVED 8Y PROCEEDING TODAY IN
LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE HEARINGS ARE GOING TO BE
RECESSED UNTIL DECEMBER 14. THERE'S NO PREJUDICE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT,SIR. THE MOTION IS
DENIED.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE ABLE To,

AT THIS TIME, TO CALL ONLY TWO WITNESSES. WE WILL


Quest

CALL THOSE TWO WITNESSES AND THEY WILL THEN RE

THE COURT RECESS UNTIL DECEMBER 44 $0 THAT WE CAN

puT IN THE REMAINDER oF OUR CASE. WE WERE NOT ABLE

AS A RESULT OF THE LIMITED TIME WE HAD TO OBTAIN

THE ATTENDANCE OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES TO PREPARE

WE HAVE AFFIDAVITS FROM SOME WITNESSES

THEM.

INDICATING THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE- we HAVE

AFFIDAVIT FROM OUR EXPERT INDICATING sHe 18 NoT

y AND IN ADDITION IN LIGHT oF THE FACT

AVAILABILIT

THAT THE couRT HAS GRANTED OUR MOTION FOR THE

PAYMENT oF THE EXPERTS EXPENSES WE REQUEST THEN TO

BE PERMITTED AFTER WE PUT ON THE TWO WITNESSES

Abouine wean ot

AVAILABLE tTopay To RECESS UNTIL DECEMBER 44.

THE COURT: THE COURT CAN'T TELL YOU HOW

TO RUN youR CASE-

: MR- COLEMAN = WELL, YOUR HONOR, 1! WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE AREN'T PREJUDICED BY THE FACT THAT AT
THE CONCLUSION oF THE TESTIMONY oF TWO WITNESSES
WHO ARE HERE WE CAN NOT pROCEED, PERIOO-

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT - so you* RE TELLING

THE COURT THEN AFTER YOU ARE FINISHED wiTH YOUR

WITNESSES TODAY THAT THE ONLY OTHER WITNESS WILL BE

THIS PSYCHOLOGIST OR PSYCHIATRIST THAT you'RE GOING

To CALL-
MR. COLEMAN: NO. THAT'S NOT THE CASE.-


THERE ARE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. WE HAVE AN
AFFIDAVIT FROM A FORMER COUNSEL TO MR. BUNDY WHO
WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. WE PRESENT IT TO THE COURT
AND STATE. WE HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE EXPERT WHO
TIS NOT ABILITY ATTEND AND BECAUSE SHE'S NOT BEEN
ABLE TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE
SECOND HALF OF THE CASE WE’RE NOT ABILITY IDENTIFY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO PRESENT WILL BE REQUIRED
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HER CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO.
THOSE ASPECTS OF THE CASE AFTER CHI OMEGA.

THE COURT: WE"LL FIND OUT IN DECEMBER
WHETHER YOU'RE TRYING TO STONEWALL THE COURT AT
THIS TIME.

MR. COLEMAN: THAT’S FINE. rt UNDERSTAND
THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE To
CALL MICHAEL MINERVA.

THE COURT: JUST A MOMENT, SIR. I WoULD
LIKE THE STATE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO 8E HEARD
BEFORE WE CALL THE FIRST WITNESS.

MR. MENSER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I
DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT TO SAY MR. COLEMAN'S SPEECH
REGARDING PREJUDICE LACK OF PREPERATION EXCEPT TO

STATE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT BROUGHT THE ACTION AND


Fan

24

25

J

IT WOULD SEEM TO BE MR. BUNDY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO
PROVE HIS CHARGES SEFORE HE LEVELS THEM RATHER THAN
LEVEL THEM AND TRY AND PROVE THEM AFTERWARDS. THIS
IS WHAT THE STATE PERCEIVES TO BE THE CASE AT BAR.

WE DID HAVE ONE THING WE WANTED TO SRING
TO THE COURTS ATTENTION THIS MORNING OURSELVES AND
THAT IS WHEN WE RESPONDED TO THE COURT'S FEDERAL
HABEAS PETITION WE DID NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING WHEREUPON
MR. BUNDY ENTERED THE COURTROOM ALLEGEDLY ATTACK
HIS ATTORNEYS. WE HAVE NOW SEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN A
COPY OF THAT TRANSCRIPT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO
SUPPLEMENT OUR RESPONSE WITH IT SO THE COURT WILL
HAVE A COMPLETE RECORD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY HAND IT TO
THE CLERK.

ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU MAY PROCEED.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE PETITIONER

CALLS MICHAEL J. MINERVA.

MICHAEL J. MINERVA, SWORN
DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. COLEMAN:

Q. MR. MINERVA, STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE


&

Nf

RECORD, PLEASE?

A. MICHAEL JOSEPH MINERVA.

THE COURT: MR. MINERVA, COULD YOU GET A

LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE?

Q. MR. MINERVA, CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE YOU'RE
CURRENTLY EMPLOYED?

A. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, SECOND
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF FLORIDA.

Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED THERE?

A. I'VE SEEN EMPLOYED THERE SINCE 1871 WITH

THE EXCEPTION OF THREE YEARS.

Q. WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT POSITION?
A. I'M CHIEF TRIAL ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE.
Q. YOU SAID_EXCEPT FOR THREE YEARS SINCE

1971 YOU HAVE SEEN EMPLOYED AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICE. CAN YOU TELL ME DURING THOSE THREE YEARS
WHAT YOU WERE DOING?
A. T WAS, FOR PART OF THE TIME, ENGAGED AS

AN ATTORNEY FOR THE FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION
COMMISSION. AND FOR TWO YEARS I WAS GENERAL
COUNSEL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

-. Q. NOW, MR. MINERVA, CAN YOU BRIEFLY
DESCRIBE TO THE COURT WHAT YOUR LEGAL EXPERIENCE
IS? I WOULD LIKE YOU SPECIFICALLY To FocUS ON THE

HANDLING OF CAPITAL CASES, CASES INVOLVING MENTAL


24

25

CAPACITY. AS FAR AS COMPETENCY OR SANITY ISSUES I

SANITY AND CASES INVOLVING COMPETENCY OF
DEFENDANTS?

A. WELL, DURING THE TIME THAT I WAS AND HAD
BEEN. IN THE PRACTICE OF CRIMINAL LAW I HAVE WORKED
AS A SUPERVISOR OR AS A CO-COUNSEL IN A LARGE
NUMBER OF CAPITAL CASES: I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT
AMOUNT BECAUSE I WAS CHIEF ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE
FOR SEVERAL YEARS SEFORE I BECAME PUBLIC DEFENDER
AND I WAS PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR FOUR YEARS AND DURING
THAT PERIODS OF TIME WE HAD A NUMBER OF CAPITAL
CASES IN THE OFFICE. SO MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THOSE
CASES VARIED. IN SOME INSTANCES I SAT AS
CO-COUNSEL AND OTHER CASES I WAS SUPERVISOR OR A
HELPING COUNSEL OR ADVISOR COUNSEL. I WOULD SAY
THAT AT LEAST TWENTY FIVE CASES THAT I WAS INVOLVED
WITH TO SOME DEGREE. ALSO Was INVOLVED IN SOME
APPEALS OF CAPITAL CASES. AGAIN IN THE SAME KIND OF
DON’T KNOW HOW MANY CRIMINAL CASES I HAVE HANDLED
OVER THE YEARS. AND A LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE CASES
THE QUESTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCY TO STAND
TRIAL WOULD BE AT LEAST A COLORABLE ISSUE THAT
WOULD BE EXPLORED SOMETIME STOPPING AT THE POINT OF
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION, SOMETIMES GOING TO A

HEARING BEFORE A COURT ON THE QUESTION OF


v

nt

COMPETENCY. AS FAR AS THE INSANITY DEFENSE ITSELF
i HANDLED A NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH INSANITY WAS
A-- CONSIDERED AS A DEFENSE, EVALUATED AS A DEFENSE
OR OFFERED AS A DEFENSE. BUT I REALLY CAN'T GIVE
YOU EXACT NUMBERS. BUT IT HAS SEEN A CONSIDERASLE--
TT HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF
TIME AND SOME OF THE CASES I HANDLE MYSELF AND SOME
cases I AGAIN WAS EITHER SUPERVISOR OR CONSULTANT
COUNSEL.

Q. NOW, IN 1978 WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION IN
THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER?

A. IN 1978 I WAS THE PUBLIC DEFENDER.

Q. CAN You TELL ME ABOUT WHAT THE SIZE OF
THE OFFICE WAS IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER DF ATTORNEYS?

A. I THINK WE HAD ABOUT A DOZEN ATTORNEYS
WHO WERE IN THE TRIAL COURTS AND ANOTHER EIGHT OR

NINE WHO WERE HANDLING APPEALS.

Q. AND DID YOUR OFFICE ALSO EMPLOY
INVESTIGATORS? ;

A. YES, WE HAD.

Q. DO YOU RECALL ABOUT HOW MANY

INVESTIGATORS YOU HAD IN 1978?
A. ABOUT FOUR.
Q. NOW, MR. MINERVA SOMETIME IN 1978 WERE

YOU APPOINTED TO REPRESENT, MR. BUNDY?


7 A. YES, I Was.

ma

. 2 Q. AND DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHEN IN 1978 THAT
3 WAS?
4 A. WE REPRESENTED MR. BUNDY IN A VARIETY OF

5 CASES AND THE FIRST APPOINTMENT CAME IN FEBRUARY, I
8 BELIEVE IT WAS OF 1978 WHEN WE WERE APPOINTED TO

7 REPRESENT HIM IN CONNECTION WITH SOME BURGLARY AND

8 THEFT CASES. SUBSEQUENTLY WE WERE APPOINTED To

8 REPRESENT HIM IN THE MURDER CASES. THAT'S THE CHI

190 OMEGA CASES AND ALSO REPRESENT HIM IN THE WHAT'S

V1 CALLED THE LAKE CITY CASE.

12 Q. NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME WITH RESPECT TO THE

13 CHARGES THAT WERE PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN

14) 1978 WHAT CRIMES DID THEY INVOLVE?
15 A. “IN 1978?

16 Q. IN FEBRUARY 19878 WHEN YOU WERE ORIGINALLY
17] APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM?

18 A. THERE WERE A VARIETY OF CHARGES THAT HAD
19) TO DO WITH BURGLARIES OF AUTOMOBILES, THEFTS OF

20/ CREDIT CARDS, USE OF THOSE CREDIT CARDS.

24 Q. NOW, AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE APPOINTED
22) TO REPRESENT MR. BUNDY WHERE WAS HE AT THE TIME?

23 A. HE WAS IN THE LEON COUNTY JAIL.

24 Q. AND ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER PRIOR TO THE

25 TIME THAT HE WAS IN LEON COUNTY JAIL IF HE WAS ALSO


oo

IN CUSTODY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA?

A. HE WAS ARRESTED IN PENSACOLA WHICH IS IN
ESCAMBIA COUNTY IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF-~ GENERALLY AWARE OF
WHAT WHAT WAS OCCURRING DURING THE TIME MR. BUNDY

WAS IN PENSACOLA?
Q. AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE SRIEFLY WHAT THAT

MR. MENSER: I HAVE TO OBJECT AT THIS
POINT UNLESS IT'S TIED INTO THE LAKE CITY CASE
SOMEHOW. IT'S ALMOST A YEAR, -YEAR AND A HALF PRIOR
TO THE LAKE CITY TRIAL.

THE COURT: WILL YOU BE ABLE TO TIE IT IN?

MR. COLEMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

A. MR. BUNDY WAS BEING QUESTIGNED 8Y LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY AND I WAS
NOTIFIED OF THAT BY ASSIST PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN
ESCAMBIA COUNTY. THEY KNEW THAT~-

MR. MENSER: OBJECTION TO WHAT SOMEONE

A. IT WAS INFORMED 8Y THEM THAT-- OF THE
CHARGES THAT WOULD BE COMING WHICH RELATED TO LEON

COUNTY CASES. SO I HAD AN INTEREST IN WHAT WAS


24

25

GOING ON THERE.
Q- LET ME ASK YOU-- ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW I
YOU HAVE A COPY OF--

YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE GIVEN TO THE CLERK I
BELIEVE AND TO STATE A PACKAGE OF THE OF OF
EXHIBITS SOUND VOLUME OF EXHIBITS I DON’T KNOW MR.
MINERVA HAS THOSE.
THE COURT: YOU MAY USE THIS.
MR. COLEMAN: I BELIEVE THAT HE DOES?
A. I HAVE THEM.
Q. LET ME ASK YOU, MR. MINERVA, TO TAKE A

LOOK AT THE GROUP OF DOCUMENTS AT TAS TWO.

4. YES, SIR.
_ Q- CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS
ARE? ;
A. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE TRANSCRIPTS OF

STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE 8Y MR. BUNDY DURING TIME
THAT HE WAS BEING QUESTIONED IN PENSACOLA.

Q. AND QUESTIONED BY WHOM?

A. QUESTIONED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
SOME FROM LEON COUNTY AND OFFICER CHAPMAN FROM
PENSACOLA.

Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THESE-- THIS INTERROGATION BY THE POLICE OCCURRED?

A. YES, SIR. WE RECEIVED THESE DOCUMENTS.

Fe


f

MR. MENSER: WE'LL OBJECT. AGAIN HE CAN
ANSWER YES OR NO QUESTION IF HE’S AWARE OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCE. WE'LL O8JECT TO ANY HEARSAY
REGARDING THEM. ,

MR. COLEMAN: I WANT TO KNOW SIMPLY WHAT
MR. MINERVA'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE.

MR. MENSER: HE'S GETTING INTO WHAT PEOPLE
TOLD HIM.

THE COURT: HE MAY GO INTO WHAT HIS
KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOCUMENT ARE WITHOUT GOING INTO
HEARSAY TESTIMONY.

A. THEY WERE-- THESE DOCUMENTS WERE
FURNISHED TO US THROUGH DISCOVERY IN THE CHI OMEGA
CASE. 2

Q. FURNISHED BY WHOM?

A. BY THE STATE AS STATEMENTS MADE BY THE
DEFENDANT IN THE COURSE OF INTERROGATION.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE STATEMENTS WERE
MADE AT THE TIME WHEN MR. BUNDY WAS BEING
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL?

A. I BELIEVE~- YES, I BELIEVE THAT THEY

Q. AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER MR. BUNDY MADE
THE STATEMENTS IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS COUNSEL?

A. NO. COUNSEL WAS NOT PRESENT.


24

25

MR. MENSER: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD OBJECT
AGAIN. THERE'S NO PREDICATE FOR THAT RESPONSE.

THE COURT: THE DOCUMENTS WILL SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I DON’T KNOW HOW
YOU WANT TO HANDLE EXHIBITS, WHETHER YOU WANT ME TO
MOVE THEIR ADMISSION AT THE TIME OR SIMPLY WAIT
UNTIL WE'VE CONCLUDED THE CROSS EXAMINATION AND
MOVE THE ADMISSION.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU JUST ADMIT EACH
DOCUMENT WHEN YOU THINK YOU GOTTEN THE PREDICATE
FOR.IT.

MR. COLEMAN: AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR, I
WOULD LIKE To MOVE THE ADMISSION OF EXHIBIT TWO
WHICH ARE TRANSCRIPTS OF INTERROGATION BY THE
POLICE THAT WERE PRODUCED 8Y THE STATE IN THE CHI
OMEGA CASE.

MR. MENSER: WE HAVE NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: IT WILL BE ADMITTED.

A. MR. COLEMAN, I MIGHT SAY THAT A PORTION

OF THESE STATEMENTS WERE MADE IN LEON COUNTY, I
BELIEVE, AND AT THAT TIME WE HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO
REPRESENT MR. BUNDY. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE
SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME THAT WE WERE APPOINTED To

REPRESENT HIM.


Q.- SO THEN THESE ARE STATEMENTS THAT
INCLUDED BOTH INTERROGATIONS THAT OCCURRED IN
PENSACOLA AS WELL AS INTERROGATIONS THAT OCCURRED
WHEN MR. BUNDY HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO LEON COUNTY?

A. THAT IS CORRECT. ,

Q. LET ME ASK YOU, MR. MINERVA, TO LOOK AT
EXHIBIT THREE WHICH IS TAB THREE. WOULD YOU TAKE &
LOOK AT THAT DOCUMENT AND TELL ME IF YOU CAN

IDENTIFY IT?

A. YES, I CAN.
Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY IT?
A. THIS IS A MEMORANDUM WHICH WAS SENT TO ME

AT MY REQUEST FROM THREE ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ISAAC GRUISGRAIN, ELIZABETH NICHOLAS AND TERRY
TERRELL. AND It IS THEIR NARRATIVE ACCOUNT OF WHAT
TRANSPIRED IN PENSACOLA WHILE MR. BUNDY WAS IN
CUSTODY THERE.

Q- CAN YOU TELL ME THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH YoU

REQUESTED THE MEMORANDUM?

A. YES. WE WERE CONTEMPLATING AND
ULTIMATELY DID FILE & MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE
STATEMENTS THAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER THAT WERE
GIVEN TO PENSACOLA. AND THESE MEMORANDA WERE TO
ASSIST us IN FORMULATING AND PRESENTING THAT

MOTION.


MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE THE
ADMISSION OF EXHIBIT THREE.

MR. MENSER: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD O8JECT
TO EXHIBIT THREE. THIS APPEARS TO BE NOTHING MORE
THAN THE UNBRIDLED HEARSAY OF THREE LAWYERS IN
PENSACOLA. IF THEY WANT TO COME IN AND GIVE
TESTIMONY IT'S FINE. WE CAN'T CROSS EXAMINE THEM.

THE COURT: OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.

MR. COLEMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST AN
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE WHICH IS THAT THESE--
THIS DOCUMENT IS ADMISSI8LE UNDER THE EXCEPTION IN
8031 WHICH IS THAT IT REFLECTS THE PRESENCE AND
IMPRESSIONS OF THE WITNESSES WHO MADE THE
STATEMENTS. IT WAS MADE AT THAT TIME AND WAS USED
BY MR. MINERVA IN ORDER TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS.
LET ME STATE THAT TWO WAYS. FIRST OF ALL WE'RE NOT
OFFERING IT FOR THE PROOF OF WHAT IS CONTAINED IN
IT BUT ONLY TO INDICATE ACTION TAKEN BY MR. MINERVA
WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBIT TWO. AND I THINK THAT HE
HAS LAID A FOUNDATION FOR THAT WHICH IS HE
REQUESTED THIS AND ON THE BASIS OF THIS FILED A
MOTION TO SURPRESS EXHIBIT Two.

THE COURT: ANY RESPONSE?

MR. MENSER: YES, YOUR HONOR. SAME

RESPONSE REALLY AS BEFORE, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO


9

\,

WAY OF VERIFYING THESE WERE THE IMPRESSION OF THESE
PARTICULAR WITNESSES. THEY'RE AVAILABLE, THEY
COULD BE BROUGHT IN IN DECEMBER TO VERIFY THE
DOCUMENT. BUT WE CAN'T GO WITH THIS.

THE COURT: ITLL SUSTAIN THE O8JECTION.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I TAKE IT
THERE'S NO NEED FOR ME TO MAKE A PROFER BEYOND WHAT
I'VE ALREADY DONE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE WHETHER THE
DOCUMENT CAN BE ADMITTED.

THE COURT: WELL, THESE PEOPLE DO APPEAR
TO BE AVAILABLE AND THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE STATE
CAN EVEN VERIFY THESE IMPRESSIONS. NOW IF THESE
PEOPLE WEREN'T AVAILABLE THEN THE COURT MIGHT MAKE
AN EXCEPTION. BUT_AT THIS TIME THIS IS JUST RANK
HEARSAY AND EVEN THE EXCEPTION. THAT YOU INDICATE
THAT IT'S MERELY AN IMPRESSION AT THE TIME THESE
PEOPLE STILL ARE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY AS ro WHAT
ACTIONS THEY TRANSMITTED TO MR. MINERVA IN ORDER TO
GET HIM TO MAKE HIS MOTION TO SURPRESS.

MR. COLEMAN: BUT, YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE
POINT IS GOES BEYOND SIMPLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER
IT REFLECTS THEIR PRESENCE AND IMPRESSION. it
ALSO-- IT INDICATED THAT ANOTHER GROUND FOR
ADMITTING THE DOCUMENT IS IT IS THE INFORMATION

THAT MR. MINERVA CONSIDERED. WHETHER OR NOT IN

Or


ee

24

25

FACT IT'S THE INFORMATION HE CONSIDERED IN MAKING
THIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EXHIBIT TWO AND I THINK
IT CAN BEEN ADMITTED FOR THAT THAT LIMITED PURPOSE
WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION CAN BE VERIFIED. iT
IS THE INFORMATION THAT HE CONSIDERED. HE'S
TESTIFIED TO THAT. AND I THINK THAT IT CAN COME IN
FOR THAT LIMITED PURPOSE.

THE COURT: I*"LL CONTINUE TO SUSTAIN THE

OBJECTION.

BY MR. COLEMAN:
Q. MR. MINERVA WOULD YOU PLEASE TURN TO

EXHIBIT FOUR?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. CAN YOU IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT PLEASE?
A. YES, SIR.

Q. WHAT IS IT?

A. IT IS A MEMORANDUM TO ME FROM KEN GLESS,

CHIEF INVESTIGATOR PENSACOLA, FLORIDA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS OFFICE.
Q. AND CAN YOU TELL ME THE PURPOSE OF
REQUESTING THIS MEMORANDUM?
MR. MENSER: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S-- PERHAPS
WE CAN SAVE SOME TIME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME

OBJECTION TO THIS DOCUMENT.


=~

THE COURT: SAME GROUNDS?

on
- 2 MR. MENSER: YES.
3 THE COURT: OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.
4 MR. COLEMAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK
5 THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AT

§ LEAST I OUGHT TO BE PERMITTED ESTABLISH THE BASIS
7 ON WHICH I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT OUGHT TO BE
8 ADMITTED.

3 THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

41 BY MR. COLEMAN:
12 Q. NOW, MR. MINERVA STATE PLEASE THE REASON

13 YOU REQUESTED THIS DOCUMENT?

14 A. YES. THIS WAS SIMILAR TO THE REASON THAT
15 I REQUESTED THE MEMORANDUMS FROM THE ASSISTANT

16 PUBLIC DEFENDERS WHICH WAS TO ESTABLISH WHAT HAD
17 TRANSPIRED IN PENSACOLA AT THE TIME OF MR. BUNDY'S
18 ARREST AND INTERROGATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF

19 ASSISTING US IN DETERMINING WHAT STEPS TO TAKE IN
20 DEFENDING HIM IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE AND OTHER

21 CASES.

22 Q. DID YOU USE THAT MEMORANDUM FOR THAT

23 PURPOSE?

24 A. Yes.

Me 25 MR. COLEMAN: I'LL NOT MOVE TO ADMIT IT ON


24

25

THE BASIS OF THE COURTS PRIOR RULING THAT IT WOULD
SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION ON THE SAME BASIS THAT THE
COURT SUSTAINED AN O8JECTION TO EXHIBIT THREE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, SIR.

BY MR. COLEMAN:

Q- MR. MINERVA CAN YOU TELL ME IN FEBRUARY
OF 1978 I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU WERE APPOINTED TO
REPRESENT MR. SUNDY. IS THAT CORRECT?

A. YES.

Q- AND IN WHAT CAPACITY WERE YOU APPOINTED
TO REPRESENT HIM?

A. WE WERE APPOINTED AS COUNSEL IN SEVERAL
OF THE PENDING CASES AND IN SEVERAL OTHER CASES.
NONE OF THESE INVOLVED HOMICIDES. IN SEVERAL OTHER
CASES WE WERE ASKED TO ASSIST HIM I BELIEVE AS HE
WAS UNDERTAKING TO REPRESENT HIM ON CERTAIN OTHER
CHARGES OF BURGLARY AND THEFT RELATED OFFENSES.

Q. AND THESE WERE CHARGES THAT WERE BEING

BROUGHT AGAINST HIM AT THE SAMETIME DURING THE SAME

PERIOD?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT

FIVE, TAB FIVE?

A. YES, SIR.


QO. CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS DOCUMENT?

A. YES, SIR. IT'S A MEMORANDUM THAT I
PREPARED.
Q. AND CAN YOU TELL ME THE CIRCUMSTANCE

UNDER WHICH YOU PREPARED THE MEMORANDUM?

A. AT SOME TIME AFTER THE EVENTS THAT ARE
PORTRAYED IN THE MEMORANDUM WITHIN A DAY OR SO AND
BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENTS I DICTATED
THIS MEMORANDUM WHICH OUTLINED THE PROCEEDINGS OR
THE CONTACT THAT I HAD WITH MR. BUNDY AND WITH
OTHER PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE AND THE OFFICE HAD WITH
MR. BUNDY WHEN HE WAS TRANSPORTED TO LEON COUNTY
FROM PENSACOLA AND WHEN HE WAS GIVEN FIRST
APPEARANCE. _

Q. I 8ELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU DICTATED
THIS MEMORANDUM AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS
THAT IT REFLECTS. IS THAT CORRECT?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. AND THIS IS BASED, THIS MEMORANDUM
REFLECTS YOUR OWN OBSERVATION AT THIS TIME?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. AND IS THIS A MEMORANDUM THAT YOU KEPT IN
THE COURSE OF YOUR REPRESENTATION OF MR. BUNDY?

A. YES.

Q. AND WAS IT YOUR REGULAR PRACTICE TO


24

25)

PREPARE SUCH A MEMORANDUM?
A. YES, IT WAS.
MR. COLEMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR THE
ADMISSION OF EXHIBIT FIVE.
MR. MENSER: MAY WE VOIR DIER?

THE COURT: YES.

VOIR OIER

BY MR. MENSER:

Q. GOOD MORNING, MR. MINERVA.
A. GOOD MORNING, SIR.
Q. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF INEFFECTIVE

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE LAKE CITY CASE?
MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR I WOULD LIKE TO--
MR. MENSER: I CAN TIE IT IN.
MR. COLEMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT TO
THIS. I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANY RELEVANCY TO THE
ADMISSION CF THIS DOCUMENT.
THE COURT: OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.
MR. MENSER: IF I MIGHT FOR THE RECORD,
MR. MINERVA HAS HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE WHICH
MEANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT CASE THERE WAS NO
ATTORNEY/CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP.

HOWEVER, HE*S NOT CHARGED IN THIS CASE WITH


INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. I DON'T KNOW
THE WAIVER WHICH MAY 8E EFFECTIVE IN CHI OMEGA
WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN THIS PARTICULAR COURT. I
WOULD NOT WANT MR. BUNDY'S CONFIDENTIAL
RELATIONSHIP COMPRIMISED IN THIS CASE ESPECIALLY
WHERE THERE'S BEEN NC HEARING IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE
UNLESS THERE*’S AN EXPRESS WAIVER OF THAT
RELATIONSHIP BY MR. BUNDY. IT’S MR. SUNDY'S
PRIVILEGE, NOT MR. MINERVA'S, PRIVILEGE TO VIOLATE
THE ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. THAT'S THE BASIS
OF OUR VOIR DIER.

THE COURT: ANY RESPONSE?

MR. COLEMAN: THIS MEMORANDUM HAS ALREADY
BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE AS AN
EXHIBIT. SO TO THE EXTENT THERE’S ANY PRIVILEGE TO
BE WAIVED IN THIS CASE I THINK THAT IT'S ALREADY
SEEN WAIVED. WITH RESPECT TO--

THE COURT: JUST FOR THE RECORD.

MR. BUNDY, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO
THIS DOCUMENT BEING ENTERED INTO THIS CASE?

MR. BUNDY: NO.

THE COURT: IT WILL BE ADMITTED.

MR. MENSER: ONE OF QUESTIONS SINCE
THERE'S A QUESTION REGARDING MR. SUNDY'S COMPETENCY

I THINK IT SHOULD BE ALONG THOSE LINES BEFORE HE


os,

Q

oe

24

25)

WAIVES A LEGAL RIGHT. I DON'T MEAN TO BELABOR THE
POINT. I DON'T WANT IT TO HAUNT US LATER.

THE COURT: WE'RE HERE FOR THAT
DETERMINATION. THAT WOULD BE THE CRUX OF IT AS
LONG AS MR BUNDY WAIVED IT I'LL ADMIT IT.

MR. MENSER: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

MR. COLEMAN: DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO
THE ADMISSION.

MR. MENSER: NO, GO AHEAD.

IN FACT YOUR HONOR AGAIN THE STATE IN THE
INTEREST TO SAME TIME WE REQUEST HE ADMIT THEIR
ENTIRE FILE OF ALL CASE NOTES. WE HAVE SELECTED
CASE NOTES AS PART OF YOUR STACK OF EXHIBITS HERE
FOR YOUR PETITION BUT WE FEEL THAT SINCE PART OF
THE FILE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, THE
STATE, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE THE ENTIRE FILE.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU MAY BO THAT AT A
LATER TIME. HE JUST WISHES TO ADMIT THIS.

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, OF COURSE WE--
TO THE EXTENT MR. MENSER PERSUES THAT WE OBVIOUSLY
RESERVE ANY O8JECTION WE HAVE.

THE COURT: I'M SURE SOME OF THAT IS
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. LET'S NOT JUST OVERWHELM THE
ENTIRE PROCESS WITH PAPERS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT.

MR. COLEMAN: WE TRY TO PRESENT HERE THE


DOCUMENTS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE RELEVANT TO THE

ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT.

BY MR. COLEMAN:

Q. MR. MINERVA IN EXHIBIT FIVE THE THIRD
PARAGRAPH DOWN NEAR THE MIDDLE YOU STATE THAT HE,
REFERRING TO MR. BUNDY, TOLD ME HE WOULD RATHER NOT
BE QUESTIONED AND WANTED US PRESENT, IF QUESTIONING
DID PLACE, AND WE AGREED I WOULD MAKE THAT
ANNOUNCEMENT AT THE FIRST APPEARANCE HEARING.

WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT IN REFERS TO?

A. YES. SINCE I HAD SEEN IN CONTACT WITH
ATTORNEYS FROM OTHER PLACES, SPECIFICALLY FROM
PENSACOLA, AND HAD SEEN INFORMED MR. BUNDY HAD
SUBMITTED TO RATHER EXTENSIVE QUESTIONING AND HAD
PARTICIPATED IN THAT QUESTIONING OVER SEVERAL

NIGHTS. I WAS CONCERNED THAT EFFORTS WOULD BE MADE

IN LEON COUNTY TO CONTINUE THE QUESTIONING. AND $0
I TALKED WITH MR. BUNDY ABOUT HIS DESIRE TO SUBMIT
TO FURTHER QUESTIONING BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
AND IF HE DID NOT WANT TO BE QUESTIONED THEN I
WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AT THE EARLIEST

OPPORTUNITY WHICH I DID AT THE FIRST APPEARANCE.


24

25

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER FOLLOWING YOUR
REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT THAT MR. BUNDY DID NOT
WANT TO TALK TO POLICE WITHOUT COUNSEL WHETHER IN
FACT HE DID TALK TO POLICE WITHOUT COUNSEL?

A. YES, SIR HE DID.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS
THAT OCCURRED, IF YOU KNOW?

AL AT LEAST TWO AND POSSI8LY MORE OF THE
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE IN ONE OF THESE EXHIBITS REFLECT
QUESTIONING B8Y-- OF MR. BUNDY SUBSEQUENT TO THE
TIME OF THE FIRST APPEARANCE.

Q. AND THE DOCUMENTS YOU REFER TO, I
BELIEVE, ARE IN EXHIBIT TWO?

A. YES, SIR:

Q. DID MR. BUNDY TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT
COUNSEL WITH YOUR PERMISSION?

A. NO, SIR NOT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.

MR. MENSER: IS THIS THE LAKE CITY CASE OR
CHI OMEGA CASE? WE'LL HAVE AN OBJECTION BASED ON
RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: DELINIATE WHICH CASE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
Q. WHICH CASE IS THIS IN?
A. MY RECOLLECTION IS THE QUESTIONING

COVERED BOTH.


Qo. YES. LET ME ASK YOU, MR. MINERVA, JUST SO
THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR DURING THIS TIME WAS THE
POLICE QUESTIONING MR. BUNDY ABOUT THE MURDER THAT
OCCURRED IN LAKE CITY AS WELL AS THE MURDERS THAT
OCCURRED IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE?

A. YES. AS WELL AS VARIOUS OTHER CHARGES.

Q. SO THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE
GOING ON AT THIS TIME WERE SROAD BASED AND RELATED
TO A NUMBER OF ALLEGED CRIMES IN WHICH MR. BUNDY
HAD BEEN INVOLVED. IS THAT CORRECT?

A. IN WHICH HE WAS A SUSPECT. YES, SIR.

Q. MR. MINERVA, DID YOU TAKE ANY STEPS TG
TRY TO PREVENT MR. BUNDY FROM TALKING WITH THE

POLICE WITHOUT COUNSEL?

A. YES, I DID.
Q.- AND WHAT STEPS DID YOU TAKE?
A. I CONSULTED WITH MR. MILLARD FARMER WHO

HAD SOME CONTACT WITH MR. BUNDY FROM EARLIER CASES
TO GET SOME GUIDANCE FROM MR. FARMER AS TO WHAT
KINDS OF STEPS I COULD TAKE TO PERSUADE MR. BUNDY
NOT TO TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

APPARENTLY HE HAD PENCHANT FOR DOING THAT TO HIS
DETRIMENT. AND IN ADDITION TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THE
POLICE DIO NOT COME OUT TO SEE HIM I SENT MY CHIEF

INVESTIGATOR JOE ALOE TO THE LEON COUNTY JAIL AND


24

25

BASCIALLY INSTRUCTED MR. ALOE TO SPEND AS MUCH TIME
WITH MR. BUNDY AS HE POSSIBLY COULD To, IF I
REMEMBER, FOR TWO PURPOSES. NUMBER ONE, AS LONG AS
MR. ALOE WAS THERE I KNEW THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS WOULD NOT TAKE MR. BUNDY OUT OF HIS SELL
AND QUESTION HIM. AND NUMBER TWO, FOR MR. ALOE TO
TRY TO REINFORCE MR. BUNDY'S RESOLVE TO PROTECT HIS
OWN INTEREST AND NOT TO TALK.

Q- DID YOU HAVE A VIEW ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS

IN MR. BUNDY'S INTEREST TO TALK TO THE POLICE AS8O0UT

COUNSEL?

A. YES, I DID.

Q- AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A. THAT IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO HIS
INTEREST.

o- NOW, THE 80TTOM OF PAGE TWO OF EXHIBIT

FIVE. THE VERY LAST LINE THAT BEGINS WITH TALKED
ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY.

A. YES.

Q. AND CONTINUES OF HIM GOING TO A
PSYCHIATRIST BUT HE SELIEVED IT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA
BECAUSE A PSYCHIATRIST ARE NO BETTER TO TALK TO
THAN TRUCK DRIVERS. CAN YOU TELL ME THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THAT OISCUSSION TOOK

PLACE?


A. YES, SIR. AFTER THE FIRST APPEARANCE
HEARING I WENT INTO THE INTERVIEW ROOM WITH MR.
BUNDY AND MISS AUTRY WAS IN THE ROOM ALSO. I THINK
SHE WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLASS. AND WE
WERE DISCUSSING THE WAYS TO HELP HIM WITH HIS
MENTAL CONDITION AT THE TIME WHICH HAD SEEN
DESCRIBED TO ME AS SOMEWHAT FRAGILE AND WHICH I WAS
UNSURE ABOUT. HE HAD, FROM INFORMATION THAT I HAD
RECEIVED FROM THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN
PENSACOLA, I KNEW THAT HE HAD BE SUBJECTED TO ALONG
PERIODS OF QUESTIONING AND GONE WITHOUT SLEEP, WAS
IN AT TEMES A STATE OF EXHAUSTION AND ALSO MIGHT
PSYCHOLOGICALLY NOT BE UP TO WITHSTANDING WHATEVER
PRESSURES MIGHT BE PUT ON HIM. SO I WAS DISCUSSING
WITH HIM THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING PSYCHIATRIC
HELP OR SEEING A PSYCHIATRIST JUST TO GET AN
EVALUATION OF WHAT HIS CONDITION WAS AT THAT TIME
AND ALSO PRESERVE FOR THE RECORD LATER ON WHAT
MENTAL CONDITION HE WAS IN AT THE TIME AND THAT WAS
HIS RESPONSE.

Q. AND AS A RESULT OF HIS RESPONSE DID You
PURSUE A PSYCHIATRIST TALKING WITH MR. BUNDY AT
THAT TIME?

A. NO, SIR, I DID NOT. ALTHOUGH=~ WELL, WE

DID NOT GET ONE. I KNOW THAT WE DID NOT GET ONE.


24

25

Q. OKAY. NOW, ON THE SAME PAGE THREE THE
NEXT TO LAST FULL PARAGRAPH THAT 8EGINS WITH WHEN

JUDY AND I LEFT.. DO YOU SEE THAT?

A. YES.
Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHO JUDY IS?
A. JUDY DAUGHERTY. WHO WAS AN ASSISTANT

PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE OFFICE AT THE TIME.

Q. THE PARAGRAPH GOES ON. HE, REFERRING TO
MR. BUNDY, SAID THE POLICE WOULD PROBABLY COME BACK
AND TRY TO QUESTION HIM. HE ALSO SAID HE PROBABLY
WOULD TALK WITH THEM BUT WOULD CALL US AgouT HE
WANTED COUNSEL WHEN HE DID SO. WHEN YOU LEFT DID
YOU HAVE ANY BELIEF ASOUT WHETHER MR. BUNDY WOULD
CALL YOU IF THE POLICE CAME TO QUESTION HIM IF You
RECALL?

A. I DON’T RECALL WHAT MY BELIEF WAS AT THAT
TIME EXCEPT THAT I KNOW I WAS VERY CONCERNED HE
WOULD DISREGARD MY ADVICE NOT TO TALK.

Q. AND I THINK YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT IN
FACT HE DID TALK WITH THE POLICE SUBSEQUENT TO THIS

OCCASION. IS THAT CORRECT?

A. YES.
Q. AND HE DID SO WITHOUT COUNSEL?
A. YES.

Q. AND HE DID NOT NOTIFY You?


24

25

A. NO. HE DID NOT.
Q. NOW MR. MINERVA IN FEBRUARY 1978 I THINK

YOU ALREADY INDICATED--

THE COURT: CAN I INTERJECT A QUESTION AT
THIS TIME?

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER~~- YOU SAY HE TALKED
WITH THE POLICE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN
IF IT WAS ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE OR WHETHER IT WAS
IDLE CONVERSATIONS OR SOMETHING THAT WAS
DENTRIMENTAL?

THE WITNESS: YOUR HONOR, I HAD REVIEWED
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE RECORDINGS AND LISTENED
TO THE TAPE RECORDINGS AND SOME OF THE STATEMENTS
THAT HE MADE WERE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO HIS INTEREST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, SIR.

PROCEED.

MR. COLEMAN: I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR, THE
EXHIBITS ARE-- SOME OF THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THOSE
SESSION ARE INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT TWO. AT SOME POINT
BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING WE ALSO WILL
PRESENT TO THE COURT A COPY OF THE TAPES. WE ALSO
ARE TRYING TO PREPARE SOME SETTER TRANSCRIPTS SO
THEY COULD BE REVIEWED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.


24

25

BY MR. COLEMAN:

Q. MR. MINERVA, I BELIEVE YOU SAID IN 1978,
FEBRUARY, WHEN YOU WERE INITIALLY APPOINTED TO
REPRESENT MR. BUNDY THAT YOU REPRESENTED HIM ONLY
ON SOME OF THE CHARGES THAT HAD SEEN FILED AGAINST
HIM AND HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF ON OTHERS?

A. YES, SIR-

Q.- CAN YOU TELL ME HOW IT WAS DECIDED WHO
WOULD REPRESENT MR. BUNDY IN WHICH PARTICULAR
CASES?

A. HE CHOSE TO REPRESENT HIMSELF ON SOME OF
THE CHARGES. AS I RECALL, NOT ALL OF THE CHARGES
WERE @ROUGHT AT ONE TIME. IN OTHER WORDS THE FIRST
APPEARANCE THAT HE HAD THE FIRST DAY, THAT ONE DID
NOT ENCOMPASS ALL THE PROPERTY CRIMES THAT WERE
ULTIMATELY FILED AGAINST HIM. AS ANOTHER CHARGES

WERE FILED AND HE WAS GIVEN FIRST APPEARANCE ON

“THOSE OTHER CHARGES HE WOULD DECIDE WHETHER HE

WANTED COUNSEL OR NOT.

Q. AND WAS HIS DECISION HONORED 8Y THE
COURT?

A. YES, SIR, IT WAS.

Q. NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME IN FEBRUARY 1978

WHAT LEGAL EXPERIENCE MR. BUNDY HAD?

MR. MENSER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT,


YOUR HONOR. THAT'S RANK HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.

A. HE HAD BEEN A LAW STUDENT, BUT HE HAD NOT
GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL. AND HE HAD PARTICIPATED
TO SOME EXTENT IN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN
COLORADO, I BELIEVE. AND I DON'T RECALL IF HE WAS
REPRESENTING HIMSELF FULLY PRO SE BUT HE HAD
PARTICIPATED SOMEWHAT IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS.

Q. AND IN YOUR OPINION, MR. MINERVA, WAS MR.
BUNDY QUALIFIED TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS?

A. NO, SIR. I WOULD SAY HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED

TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.

Q. AND WAS HE CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING
HIMSELF?

A. NO, SIR.

Q. NOW, I BELIEVE THAT THE RECORD INDICATES

THAT SOMETIME IN JULY 1978 MR. BUNDY WAS INDICTED
ON MURDER CHARGES IN LAKE CITY AND IN TALLAHASSEE.
IS THAT CORRECT?

A.” I DON'T RECALL EXACT DATES, BUT YES, IT
WAS DURING THE SUMMER TIME.

QO. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER YOUR OFFICE AT
THE TIME OF THE INDICTMENT HAD ANY ROLL IN

REPRESENTING MR. BUNDY IN EITHER CASE?


)

24

25

A. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN 8Y THE WORD
ROLL. BUT WE WERE NOT FORMALLY APPOINTED To
REPRESENT HIM.

Q. AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER MR. BUNDY WAS
REPRESENTED 8Y ANYSODY, ANY COUNSEL AFTER THE
INDICTMENTS IN THE TWO CASES?

A. NO. HE WAS NOT, NOT INITIALLY.

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER HE HAD MADE AN EFFORT
TO OBTAIN COUNSEL?

A. YES, SIR. HE HAD MADE AN EFFORT TO
OBTAIN COUNSEL.

Q. AND CAN YOU TELL~- CAN YOU BRIEFLY
DESCRIBE WHAT THAT EFFORT WAS AND WHAT THE RESULT
OF IT WAS? 7

A. HE ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN SERVICES OF
MILLARD FARMER AN EXPERT IN DEATH PENALTY
LITIGATION FROM ATLANTA AND MR. FARMER ATTEMPTED TO
APPEAR ON MR. BUNDY'S BEHALF AS COUNSEL PRO HOC
VICE IN FLORIDA BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE
FLORIDA BAR. AND HE APPEARED BEFORE JUDGE RUDD IN
LEON COUNTY AND ASKED TO 8E ADMITTED AND THE
APPLICATION WAS DENIED.

Q. AND DO YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING THAT, HOW MR.
BUNDY WAS REPRESENTED IN THE LEON COUNTY CASE?

A. FOLLOWING THAT HE WAS PRO SE.


4 C. AND WHAT ABOUT IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE?
om
. “2 A. THE CHI OMEGA OR-~
3). QO. THE-~ WHAT'S THE COUNTY?
4 A. THE LAKE CITY ‘CASE.
5 Q. : YES.
§ A. THE SAME SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOLLOWED AS
7 FAR AS THE LAKE CITY CASE. MR. FARMER MADE
8 APPLICATION TO BE ADMITTED FOR THAT ONE CASE AND
3 HIS APPLICATION WAS DENIED AND MR. BUNDY THEREAFTER
10 WAS PRO SE.
14 Q. NOW, MR. MINERVA, FOLLOWING THE
12) . INDICTMENTS IN THE LAKE CITY CASE AND THE LEON
Q 13 COUNTY CASE CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE RERLATIONSHIP

14 WAS BETWEEN THE TWO PROCEEDINGS?

15 A. WELL, THEY WERE PROCEEDING ON PARALLEL
16 TRACKS. THEY WERE-~ THE CASES WERE GOING FORWARD
17 SIMULTANEOUSLY AND MR. BUNDY WAS REPRESENTING

18 HIMSELF. I BELIEVE THAT IN LEON COUNTY JUDGE RUDD
19 HAD ASKED US TO OFFER HIM WHATEVER ASSISTANCE WE
20 COULD BUT WE WERE NOT FORMALLY REPRESENTING HIM AND
21 DID REALLY VERY LITTLE. HE DID NOT ASK US TO BO
22 ANYTHING. FROM TIME TO TIME I BELIEVE HE WOULD BE
23 TAKEN TO LAKE CITY FOR VARIOUS HEARINGS BUT THE

24 PRIMARY EMPHASIS AT THAT TIME SEEMED TO BE THE CHI

(ue 25| OMEGA CASE.


oOo

24

25

Q.- CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER THERE WAS- ANY
EFFORT TO COORDINATE THE TWO CASES BY THE TWO
COURTS INVOLVED?

A. NOT AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NOT, NOT THAT
I KNEW ABOUT.

Q. AND SO TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING THE TWO

CASES WERE PROCEEDING INDEPENDANTLY AT THE

SAMETIME?
A. YES.
Q. AND MR. BUNDY WAS REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN

BOTH CASES AT THE SAMETIME?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. NOW, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, MR. MINERVA, CAN
YOU TELL ME WHAT EFFORTS MR. BUNDY MADE OR WAS
MAKING FOLLOWING THE INDICTMENT IN THE LEON COUNTY
CASE AND THE LAKE CITY CASE TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL?

A. AT FIRST HE MADE VERY LITTLE EFFORT, IF
ANY AT ALL.

Q. AND YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU HAD BEEN
REQUESTED BY JUDGE RUDD TO PLAY SOME ADVISORY ROLL
IN LEON COUNTY?

A. WE WERE NOT APPOINTED AS ADVISORY COUNSEL
BUT HE ASKED US AS MORE OR LESS AS A FAVOR I THINK
TO ASSIST MR. BUNDY IF MR. BUNDY ASKED US FOR

ASSISTANCE.


4 Q.- THIS WAS AN INFORMAL KIND OF RELATIONSHIP
oy
~ 2 WHICH DEPENDED ON MR. BUNDY TO INITIATE REQUESTS?
3 A. YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT.
4 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER MR. BUNDY EVER
5 REQUESTED YOUR ASSISTANCE?
5 A. HE MAY HAVE ASKED FOR ONE OR TWO
7 CITATIONS. I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE.
8 Q. DID-- DURING THIS PERIOD DID MR. BUNDY
S APPROACH YOU TO DISCUSS TRIAL PREPERATION?
10 A. NO, SIR.
11 Q. DIB HE APPROACH YOU TO DISCUSS TRIAL
12 STRATEGY?
eS 13 A. NO, SIR.
14 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME, MR. MINERVA, DURING THIS

15 PERIOD WHETHER YOU HAD AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER MR.
16 BUNDY WAS CAPABLE OF DEFENDING HIMSELF PRO SE IN
17 THOSE TWO CASES THAT WERE PROCEEDING AT THE

18 SAMETIME?

139 A. WHETHER I HAD AN OPINION? YES.

26 Q. AND?

21 A. YES. I DID HAVE AN OPINION.

22 Q. WHAT WAS YOUR OPINION?

23 A. THAT HE COULDN'T DO IT.

24 Q. TELL ME THE BASIS FOR YOUR OPINION AT

25 THAT TIME?


A. WELL, THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE WAS
STAGGERING. TO TRY TO CONDUCT A DEFENSE IN THOSE
TWO CASES SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMPLICATED
NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE, THE COMPLICATED LEGAL .
QUESTIONS INVOLVED WOULD HAVE TAKEN A STAFF OF
LAWYERS WITH FULL ACCESS TO INVESTIGATORS AND LAW
BOOKS. WE WERE-- WITH THE STAFF I HAD WERE ABLE TO
DO BOTH CASES. WE HAD A VERY DIFFICULT TIME JUST
DOING ONE. TO 50 BOTH AT THE SAMETIME FROM A JAIL
CELL WITH NO LAW BOOKS, NO INVESTIGATOR WAS
IMPCSSISBLE. AND NO ONE COULD HAVE DONE IT IN MY
OPINION.

Q. : ARE YOU AWARE DURING THE PERIOD MR. BUNDY
WAS REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THESE TWO CASES WHETHER
HE MADE ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT ABOUT HIS
PREPERATICN TO PROCEED TO TRIAL?

A. YES, SIR. AT SOME POINT THERE WAS AN
ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE COURT MR.
BUNDY WAS OR WOULD BE READY FOR THE FIRST TRIAL
DATE.

Q. DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE FIRST TRIAL DATE
WAS?

A. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN OCTOBER. I DON'T
RECALL THE EXACT DATE. I SELIEVE IT WAS IN OCTOBER

OF SEVENTY EIGHT.


a

24

25

Q. AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN FACT MR. BUNDY
WAS PREPARED TO PROCEED TO TRIAL IN OCTOBER 1978?

A. I KNOW HE MADE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE
SAYING HE WAS NOT PREPARED.

Q. MR. MINERVA, LET ME ASK YOU TO LOGK AT
EXHIBIT SIX AND ALSO EXHISIT SEVEN AND TAKE TIME TO
JUST LOOK AT THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS?

A. YES, SIR.

QO. FIRST LOOKING AT EXHIBIT SIX CAN YOU

IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENT PLEASE?

A. YES, SIR, I CAN.

Q. WHAT IS IT?

A. IT 1S A MEMORANDUM THAT I PREPARED FOR
THE FILE. -

Q. AND IS. THIS A MEMORANDUM REFLECTING YOUR

OBSERVATION OF CERTAIN EVENTS?
A. YES, SIR.
MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR, I CAN CONTINUE
IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE ADMISSABILITY OF THESE
DOCUMENTS BUT THESE ARE SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER--
THE COURT: ANY VOIR DIER ON THESE?
MR. MENSER: NO. ONCE AGAIN-~-
THE COURT: THEY WILL BE ADMITTED.
MR. COLEMAN: I MOVE FOR THE ADMISSION OF

EXHI8IT SIX AND SEVEN.


25

19

20

21

22

23

24

NO OBJECTION.

BY MR. COLEMAN:

THE COURT: THEY WILL BE ADMITTED-

MR. MENSER: IF WE CAN SAFE TIME FOR THE

REST OF THE PACK HERE SEVEN THROUGH NINTEEN WE HAVE

MR. COLEMAN: THEN I MOVE THEIR ADMISSION.

THE COURT: THEY WILL BE ADMITTED-

Q. NOW, MR. MINERVA, THIS DOCUMENT IS DATED

OCTOBER 5 1978. ] BELIEVE YOU SAY IT REFERS~~

WHAT DOES IT REFER? WHAT'S THE EVENT THIS DOCUMENT

REFERS TO?

A. THE EVENT IS A PRE TRIAL DISCUSSION WITH
THE JUDGE AND MEMBERS oF THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE
AND SOME LAWYERS FROM MY OFFICE CONCERNING THE
SCHEDULING OF THE TRIAL.

Q. NOW, AT THIS TIME WERE YOU STILL SERVING
IN THE INFORMAL ROLL OF RESPONDING TO REQUESTS 8Y
MR. BUNDY FOR ASSISTANCE?

A. YES, SIR.

Q.- AND I TAKE IT THAT YOUR DESCRIPTION OF
HIS ACTIVITIES TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL RELATED TO THE
PERIOD PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5, 1978- IS THAT CORRECT?

A. Yes, SIR-

Q- MR. MINERVA, wouLD YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT


Wi

SEVEN?

A. YES.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE EVENT IS THAT
THIS DOCUMENT REFERS TO? ,

A. THE DOCUMENT REFERS TO THE HEARING OF
OCTOBER 3 ON THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND
THEN SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS THAT I AND OTHER
LAWYERS IN THE OFFICE HAD WITH MR. BUNDY.

Q. NOW, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF EXHIBIT SEVEN
YOU INDICATE THAT JUDGE RUDD HAD OFFERED COUNSEL TO
MR. BUNDY INDICATING TO MR. BUNDY THAT HE WOULD
APPOINT YOUR OFFICE TO REPRESENT HIM. TS THAT
CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED?

A. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

Q. WHAT HAPPENED? AND CAN YOU TELL ME

WHETHER MR. BUNDY ACCEPTED YOUR APPOINTMENT AS

COUNSEL?
AL. HE DID NOT.
Q. NOW, YOUR MEMORANDUM, EXHIBIT SEVEN,

REFERS TO MR. BUNDY'S INABILITY TO MAKEUP HIS
MIND. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT WAS AND THE
NATURE OF THAT?

A. AFTER THE HEARING SEVERAL OF US WENT BACK
TO THE HOLDING CELL IN THE JAIL-- NOT IN THE JAIL,

AT THE COURTHOUSE AND TALKED WITH MR. BUNDY ABOUT


THE JUDGE'S OFFER TO APPOINT US AND WHETHER HE
WOULD ACCEPT THAT OFFER. AND IN A NUTSHELL AT THAT
TIME MR. BUNDY SAID THAT HE NEEDED MORE TIME TO
THINK ABOUT THAT DECISION. SO WE DID NOT PURSUE IT
ANY FURTHER AT THAT TIME EXCEPT TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO
MAKE A DECISION. AND THEN WE TOLD HIM WE WOULD
COME OUT TO SEE HIM LATER ON. WE HAD CONVERSATIONS
BACK AND FORTH ABOUT VARIOUS STRATAGIES THAT MIGHT
BE EMPLOYED IF HE WENT WITHOUT COUNSEL OR IF HE
ACCEPTED COUNSEL AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT NOT
ONLY AT TRIAL 8UT POST TRIAL. AND WE ENCOURAGED HIM
TO CHOOSE A COURSE OF ACTION THAT WOULD SE-- WOULD
BE A PLAN THAT WOULD SE YOU PLAN TO GO IT ALONE OR
YOU PLAN TO FIGHT IT WITH COUNSEL. AND THAT NOT
MAKING A DECISION WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS
QUO AND THAT WAS A DECISION IN INSELF.

Q. DID MR. BUNDY MAKE A DECISION FOLLOWING
THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU GAVE HIM TO THINK ABOUT?
A. NO, SIR. EVEN WHEN WE GAVE HIM A FEW
DAYS. AND WE WENT TO THE JAIL LATER ON AND 8ROUGHT

THIS SUBJECT UP AGAIN BECAUSE THERE IN THE
COURTHOUSE HE SAID HE NEEDED MORE TIME. SO WE GAVE
HIM MORE TIME TO GO OUT TO THE JAIL TO GIVE HIM
MORE TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT. HE STILL HAD NOT MADE

A DECISION, DID NOT MAKE A DECISION AND SAID HE WAS


N_/

UNABLE TO MAKE A DECISION.

Q. MR. MINERVA, ON PAGE THREE OF EXHIBIT
SEVEN LAST PARAGRAPH. YOU SAY THAT IN MY OPINION
BUNDY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING A DECISION AND THIS
HAS SEEN A CONTINUATION OF THE VACILLATION HE HAS
EXPERIENCED THROUGHOUT THE TIME THAT WE HAVE BEEN
CONFERRING WITH HIM. I BELIEVE HE HAS A BASIC
DEFECT IN HIS REASONING PROCESS WHICH PREVENTS HIM
FROM REVIEWING THIS CASE IN A REALISTIC MANNER. CAN
YOU TELL ME THE BASIS FOR THAT OPINION EXPRESSED IN
EXHIBIT SEVEN?

A. YES, SIR. IT WAS BASED ON WHAT WE HAD
BEEN EXPERIENCING IN OUR DEALINGS WITH MR. BUNDY
FROM THE TIME THAT WE FIRST HAD ANY CONTACT WITH
HIM WHICH WAS THAT HE WOULD SAY ONE THING AND THEN
DO ANOTHER. FOR EXAMPLE IN THE AREA OF WHETHER HE
WANTED TO SUBMIT THE QUESTIONING OR NOT SUBMIT THE
QUESTIONING, WHETHER HE WANTED COUNSEL OR NOT.

WHEN HE WOULD TELL US THAT HE WANTED US PRESENT,

DID NOT WANT TO TALK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
WITHOUT US PRESENT, AND THEN WOULD GO AHEAD AND DO
IT ANYWAY WITHOUT CALLING ON US. AND IN THE
QUESTION OF PREPERATION AND WHETHER WE WERE GOING
TO HELP HIM OR WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO DO ANYTHING

TO HELP HIM AND & WHAT STRATAGY HE WAS GOING TO


24

25

EMPLOY HE NEVER SEEMED TO SETTLE ON A COURSE OF
ACTION OR THEORY THAT HE WOULD PERSIST IN. HE WAS
ALWAYS CHANGING. THEN ON THIS QUESTION OF COUNSEL
AND WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO
TRY TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE OF THE DENIAL OF COUNSEL
WHEN MR. FARMER HAD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REPRESENT HIM
OR WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO PRESERVE IT IN A
DIFFERENT FORM 8Y ACCEPTING COUNSEL, SAY US, BUT
UNDER PROTEST OR WHETHER HE WOULD JUST TAKE US
WITHOUT RESERVE AND LET US REPRESENT HIM OR SOME
HYBRID VERSION OF ALL THESE THINGS AND WHAT WAS
GOING TO BE A STRATAGY, HE NEVER MADE A DECISION.
HE NEVER SAID I'VE DECIDED THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING
TO DO. -

Q. DID HE STATE DURING YOUR REPRESENTATION
OF HIM IN LEON COUNTY, IN THE LAKE CITY CASE
THROUGH THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL, DID HE EVER
COME UP WITH A STRATAGY THAT HE WOULD PURSUE TRIAL
AND STICK TO IT?

AL NO, SIR. THIS WAS-- THIS WAS THE-- ONE OF
THE FATAL FLAWS IN TRYING TO PROCEED IN THIS CASE
WAS THERE NEVER WAS AND COULDN'T 8& BECAUSE OF HIS
CHANGING HIS MIND. A THEORY OF A CASE, WHICH IS
ESSENTIAL IN MY VIEW TO TRYING TO DEFEND ANYONE, 18

TO HAVE A THEORY. YOU MIGHT MODIFIED IT AS TIME


GOES ON BUT YOU BY THE TIME IT GETS TO THE TRIAL
ANYWAY YOU GOT TO KNOW WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO SET
TO WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED. AND WHAT I WAS EXPLAINING
HERE OR TRYING TO IN THIS MEMORANDUM PERSISTED
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TIME THAT I WAS ASSOCIATED
WITH MR. BUNDY, NAMELY THAT HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH
ALTERNATIVES OF WHAT TO DO AND HAVING TO COME TO A
PLAN AND HE DIDN'T. AND IF WE DID AGREE ON
SOMETHING HE WOULD PROMPTLY CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT
IT.

Q. MR. MINERVA CAN YOU TELL THE COURT PLEASE
WHAT THE EFFECT OF THIS SEHAVIOR WAS ON MR. BUNDY’'S
DEFENSE?

A. WELL IT DEVISTATED IT BECAUSE WE WERE
GOING OFF IN ALL DIRECTIONS AT ONCE.

Q. YOU INDICATE IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF
EXHIBIT SEVEN YOU SAY I BO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE WAS
BEING ORNERY WITH US OR PUTTING ON AN ACT. HE HAS

TAKEN THE SAME POSITIGN OF AMBIVALENCE FROM THE

FIRST TIME I TALKED WITH HIM WHEN HE WAS FIRST
BROUGHT TO TALLAHASSEE IN FEBRUARY. ALTHOUGH HE
APPEARS TO HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY TO MAKE
DECISIONS HE LACKS THE MENTAL ASILITY TO DECIDE
UPON A COURSE OF ACTION. WAS THAT YOUR CONCLUSION

THEN ABOUT MR. BUNDY?


24

25

A. YES, SIR.

Q- DID YOUR OPINION ABOUT HIM AND HIS
ABILITY TO MAKE DECISION CHANGE FROM ANY TIME
DURING YOUR REPRESENTATION OF HIM?

A. NO. IT DID NOT.

Q. NOW. IN OCTOSER THE TRIAL WAS
RESCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN DECEMBER OF 1978. IS THAT
YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A. YES.

Q. DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER TO

DECEMBER 1978 DID YOU SERVE AS COUNSEL TO MR.

BUNDY?
A. NO.
Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER THE TRIAL IN FACT

BEGAN IN DECEMBER 19787

A. IT DID NOT.
Q- CAN YOU TELL ME WHY NOT?
A. TWO REASONS. ONE, MR. BUNDY REQUESTED A

CONTINUANCE AND TWO, A FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ISSUED
A PROHIBITION AGAINST JUDGE RUDD.
Q. WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR MR. BUNDY'S

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL IN DECEMBER OF

1978?
A. HE WAS NOT PREPARED.
Q. AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER HE STATED THIS


4 FACT TO THE COURT ON THE RECORD?

of
: 2 A. YES, HE DID.
3 Q. NOW YOUR OFFICE I BELIEVE EVENTUALLY WAS
4| APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MR. BUNDY IN DECEMBER 1978.
5 IS THAT CORRECT?
8 A. Yes.
7 Q. THE TRIAL WAS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN JUNE
8} OF 19739?
9 A. ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHEN IT DID BEGIN. IT
19] HAD A FEW MORE CONTINUANCES, I BELIEVE.
14 Q. AT THE TIME THAT YOU TOOK OVER THE
12; DEFENSE OF MR. BUNDY DID YOU REPRESENT HIM ALONE,
Q 13] MEANING YOUR OFFICE, OR DID YOU HAVE SOME

14 CO-COUNSEL RELATIONSHIP OR OTHER TYPE OF

15 RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. BUNDY?

16 A. THAT FLUCTUATED. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE
17 IDEA OF HIM ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL. AND THIS AGAIN
18 WAS KICKED BACK AND FORTH. AND HE WANTED TO

19 PARTICIPATE. AND I THINK IN CERTAIN PHASES HE DID
_26 PARTICIPATE.

21 Q. WAS IT YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE MR. BUNDY

22 PARTICIPATE AS CO-COUNSEL?

23 A. NO. IT WAS NOT.

24 Q. AND DO YOU BELIEVE MR. BUNDY'S

Net 25 PARTICIPATION IN HIS DEFENSE AS CO-COUNSEL HELPED


id

24

25

THE DEFENSE?

A. NO. :

Q. DID IT HARM THE DEFENSE?

A. YES. IN MY VIEW IT DID.

Q.- IN WHAT WAY?

A. MR. BUNDY WOULD INSIST ON US GOING DOWN

ALOT OF RABBIT TRAILS, IN A SENSE, PERSUING
EVIDENCE AND LEADS, ARGUMENTS THAT WERE WASTING OUR
TIME, DIVERTING US FROM THE MAIN ISSUES. AND SOME
OF THE COURT HEARINGS HE INSISTED THAT WE DEVELOP
OR PRESENT CERTAIN EVIDENCE THAT WE KNEW WOULD SE
DAMAGING YET HE WAS VERY ADAMENT ABOUT US DOING
THAT.

THE PRETRIAL HEARINGS INVOLVED A QUESTION
OF IDENTIFICATION OF A PRE TRIAL IDENTIFICATION
PROCEDURE BY A WITNESS AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. WE WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN TRYING
TO HAVE THEM CLOSED. WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE
DEVISTATING FOR THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY AND MAKE A
PRETRIAL IN COURT IDENTIFICATION OF MR. BUNDY.
NEVERTHELESS HE VEHEMENTLY INSISTED WE PRESENT THAT
EVIDENCE. ,

DURING THE~- THERE WERE OTHER INSTANCES
DURING PRE TRIAL HEARINGS WHEN HE WANTED US TO

ESTABLISH CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR TRY TO PRESENT


CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH PROBABLE CAUSE
THAT WOULD HAVE JUST REINFORCED THE CASE AGAINST
HIM.

IN THE TRIAL ITSELF HE PRESENTED SOME
QUESTIONING OF ONE WITNESS THAT SROUGHT OUT A WHOLE
LOT OF GORY DETAILS THAT WERE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY
WHICH WE HAD TRIED TO KEEP OUT GURSELVES. DURING
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. SUSERON DURING TRIAL THE
STATES EVIDENCE WAS BARE BONES, I WOULD SAY, AS TO
DR. ‘SUBERON'S DIRECT TESTIMONY AND
CROSS-EXAMINATION DONE BY MR. HARVEY WENT TO THE
ESSENCE OF-- IT WEAKENED IT TO SOME EXTENT. WE
WANTED TO STOP IT AT THAT POINT. WE FELT FURTHER
QUESTIONING WOULD ONLY BRING OUT MORE INCRIMINATING.
EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. BUNDY. MR. BUNDY PERSISTED
AND INSISTED RATHER THAT WE DO A MORE DETAILED AND”
THOROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. SUBERON WHICH
RESULTED IN SOME VERY DAMAGING TESTIMONY GOING IN.

THESE WERE THE THINGS HE DID IN COURT NOT
TO MENTION WHAT HE WAS DOING TO THE DEFENSE TEAM
ITSELF.

Q. WHY DON'T YOU DESCRISE WHAT WAS GOING
ON. WHAT WAS HE DOING TO THE DEFENSE TEAM DURING
THIS PERIOD?

A. DEVISEFNESS IS WHAT WAS SPAWNED. PLUS A


LACK OF DIRECTION, A CHANGE OF DIRECTICN THAT WE
WERE CONSTANTLY UNDER GOING. BUT IN ADDITION SINCE
THERE WERE SEVERAL LAWYERS WORKING ON HIS CASE MR.
BUNDY WANTED TO CONTROL WHICH LAWYER DID WHAT. HE
INSISTED THAT MARGARET GOOD, WHO WAS A FEMALE
LAWYER IN THE OFFICES, WHO DONE ONLY APPELLANT
PRACTICE, BE MADE A PART OF THE DEFENSE TEAM. AND
THAT WAS NOT.OUR PLAN. BUT MR. SUNDY KEPT INSISTING
THAT SHE PARTICIPATE.
HE MADE THE LAWYERS WHO WERE PRESENTING

THE OPENING STATEMENTS REHEARSE SEVERAL DIFFERENT
VERSIONS AND THEN HE PICKED THE LAWYER WHO WAS
GOING To MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT. AND HE DID
THE SAME THING WITH THE CLOSING ARGUMENT. AND IN
EFFECT KEEPING EVERYBODY OFF BALANCE DEMANDING TO
BE SEEN AT ALL TIMES WHEN WE REALLY NEEDED TO BE
WORKING ON THE CASE. HE WOULD DEMAND WE COME TO
HIS JAIL CELL WHEN IT WAS REALLY NON PRODUCTIVE To
8E DOING THAT.

Q- NOW, AT SOME POINT, MR. MINERVA, WERE YOU
APPOINTED AS COUNSEL, STAND 8Y COUNSEL, TO

REPRESENT MR. SUNDY IN THE LAKE CITY CASE?

A. YES.
Q. WOULD YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT ONE, PLEASE?
A. EXHIBIT ONE?


Qo. YES.
A. YES.
Q.- ‘IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME

COURT APPOINTING YOU AS COUNSEL OR STAND 8Y COUNSEL

IN THE. LAKE CITY CASE?

A. YES, SIR.

Qe AND DID You SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY?

A. YES.

Q- THIS IS YOUR OFFICE SERVED?

A. MY OFFICE, RIGHT. I PERSONALLY DID NOT

CONDUCT IT BUT THE ORDER APPOINTS THE OFFICE OF THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Q. AND WERE LAWYERS IN YOUR OFFICE ASSIGNED
TO ASSIST MR. BUNDY WITH THE LAKE city CASE DURING
THE PERIOD YOU WERE ALSO REPRESENTING HIM IN THE
CHI OMEGA CASE?

A. YES.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME IN THE LAKE CITY CASE

WHAT THE ROLL OF YOUR OFFICE WAS?

A. WE HELPED BUT WE WERE NOT THE PRIMARY OR
LEAD COUNSEL. IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE, I FELT, FOR US TO
BE REPRESENTING HIM IN BOTH OF THESE CASES AT THE
SAMETIME. AND I TRIED TO FIND, AND ULTIMATELY WE
DID FIND, A LAWYER FROM THE COLUMBIA COUNTY AREA

WHO WAS WILLING TO TAKE ON THE JOB AS PRIMARY


COUNSEL AND OUR OFFICERS FUNDED HIM. HE WAS

ACTUALLY THE ONE WHO WAS THE CHIEF COUNSEL IN THE

CASE.
Q. AND WHO WAS THAT ATTORNEY?
A. VICTOR AFRICANO. .
Q. HE WAS SPECIAL COUNSEL EMPLOYED BY YOUR

OFFICES TO REPRESENT MR. BUNDY IN THE LAKE CITY

CASE?
A. YES.
Q. AT THIS TIME, AROUND DECEMBER OF 1978,

HAD THERE BEEN ANY EFFORT TO COORDINATE THE TWO
CASES? THE LEON COUNTY CASE AND THE LAKE CITY
CASE?

A. FROM THE JUDGES STANDPOINT OR

PROSECUTOR? IT's--

Q. FROM THE JUDGES STANDPOINT?
A. NO.
Q- DID THERE COME A TIME WHEN THERE WAS SOME

EFFORT MADE TO COORDINATE THE TWO CASES?

A. YES, THERE WAS.
Q. WHERE WAS THAT AND WHAT WAS DONE?
A. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS IN THE SPRING, MAY

BE LATE WINTER 1979, AND I REALIZE AND PEOPLE IN MY
OFFICE WORKING ON THIS CASE REALIZED THAT BOTH OF

THESE CASES GOING FORWARD AT THE SAMETIME WOULD


4 NOT-- IT COULD NOT REALISTICALLY HAPPEN. WE COULD
2 NOT TRY BOTH OF THEM OR EVEN BACK TO BACK WITHOUT
3 SOME CONSIDERASLE BRAKE IN BETWEEN THE TWO SO WE

4 COULD CHANGE GEARS. WE WERE UNABLE TO DO DISCOVERY
5 IN BOTH CASES. SO I ASKED FOR A JOINT PRE TRIAL

§| CONFERENCE WHERE THE JUDGES IN BOTH OF THE CASES

7 SAT TOGETHER AND WE PRESENTED MOTIONS ASKING FOR A
8 CONTINUANCE OF ONE OR ACTUALLY BOTH CASES AND

3 PRESENTED THE DILEMMA OF ONE OFFICE TRYING TO

10 HANOLE BOTH THESE CASES AT THE SAMETIME TRYING TO
14 GET A SCHEDULE.

12 Q. WERE YOU ABLE TO ULTIMATELY GET A

13 SCHEDULE?

14 A. WE GOT A_ SCHEDULE.

15 Q. AND AT THAT TIME THE SCHEDULE WAS THAT

16 THE CHI OMEGA CASE WOULD BE TRIED FIRST FOLLOWED BY
17 THE LAKE CITY CASE?

18 A. YES, SIR.

19). Q. NOW, DURING THIS PERIOD UP TO THE TIME,

20 LET'S SAY JANUARY OF 1979, WHAT WAS MR. BUNDY'S

21 EVALUATION OF THE CASE AGAINST HIM?

22 A. WHAT HE TOLD US WAS IT WASN‘’T. ANYTHING TO
23 IT.
24 Q.- AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER

Ne 25 THAT EVALUATION OF THE CASE ACCORDED WITH THE


24

25

A.

NOT TO MY VIEW OF THE FACTS IT DIDN'T.
DID YOU EVER DISCUSS THAT WITH MR. BUNDY?
TRIED TO YES, SIR.

AND WERE YOU SUCCESSFUL?

“1 DON'T THINK. I WAS ABLE TO PERSUADE HIM

TO MY VIEW.

Q-

DID HE EVER CHANGE HIS OPINION ASOUT THE

QUALITY OF THE STATES CASE AGAINST HIM?

A.

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: MR. COLEMAN LET'S TAKE &

FIFTEEN MINUTE RECESS.

€ RECESS IS TAKEN) ~

€ RECESS OVER HEARING RESUMES AS

FOLLOWS: )

CAT THIS TIME THE JUDGE ENTERS THE

COURTROOM.)

MICHAEL MINERVA, PREVIOUSLY SWORN,

RESUMES THE STAND.

CONINTUED DIRECT EXAMINATION


BY MR. COLEMAN:

THE COURT: MR. COLEMAN, YOU MAY PROCEED.

BY MR. COLEMAN:

Q. MR. MINERVA, SOMETIME IN THE SPRING OF
1979 DID YOU SEGIN TO DISCUSS WITH THE STATE OF
FLORIDA A PLEA BARGAIN IN THE TWO CASES PENDING
AGAINST MR. BUNDY?

A. YES.

Q. AND THOSE TWO CASES WERE THE LAKE CITY

CASE AND THE LEON COUNTY CASE?

A. Yes.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THOSE DISCUSSIONS
DEVELOPED? 7

A. ORIGINALLY I HAD A CONVERSATIONS WITH

LARRY SIMPSON WHO WAS THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR IN THE
CHI OMEGA CASE AND HE SAID THAT SEFORE THE NEXT
SCHEDULED ROUND OF PRE TRIAL MOTIONS HAD TO BE
HEARD THAT HE THOUGHT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE
POSSIBILITY OF PLEA NEGOTIATION, THAT THOSE |
HEARINGS WOULD DEVELOP A GREAT DEAL OF
INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. 8UNDY WHICH
MIGHT MAKE IT IMPOSSI8LE TO LATER CONCLUDE A PLEA
AGREEMENT ONCE THE PUBLIC WAS AWARE OF SAY ALL OF

THE EVIDENCE. SO HE SUGGESTED THAT WE EXPLORE THE


oN

POSSIBILITY AND HE WANTED TO KNOW SORT OF AS A LAST
GRASP BEFORE WE PLUNGED ALONG IN THE FULL ADVERSARY
PROCEEDINGS WHETHER NEGOTIATION WAS GOING TO BE
POSSIBLE AND HE ASKED IF MR. BUNDY WOULD BE
RECEPTIVE TO THAT AND I TALKED TO MR. BUNDY ABOUT
THAT ABOUT THE POSSISILITY OF IT AND MR. BUNDY

REJECTED IT AT THAT TIME.

Q. LET ME ASK You TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT EIGHT.

A. YES, SIR.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THIS EXHIBIT IS,
PLEASE?

A. YES, SIR. THIS IS A MEMORANDUM THAT T

PREPARED OF A MY DISCUSSION WITH MR. SIMPSON AND
MR. BUNDY CONCERNING THE EVENT You HAVE JUST TALKED
ABOUT.

Q.- THIS MEMORANDUM IS DATED APRIL 18,1979.
IS THAT CORRECT?

A. YES, SIR.

QO. AND DID YOU TELL MR. SIMPSON THAT MR.
BUNDY WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE PLEA DISCUSSIONS?

A. YES.

Q. NOW SUBSEQUENT TO THIS TIME DID THE
DISCUSSIONS RESUME?

A. YES, THEY DID.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THAT OCCURRED?


Ne

i

AL I TALKED WITH JOE NURSEY WHO WAS A LAWYER
NEGOTIATED WITH MILLARD FARMER AND JOE ALSO SEEN IN
OUR OFFICES AND I TOLD HIM THAT THE STATE HAD
EXPRESSED SOME WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE THE CASE
AND THAT MR. BUNDY HAD DECLINED THE OFFICER AND MR.
NURSEY TOLD ME THAT MR. BUNDY HAD ALWAYS WANTED TO
OR THAT HE GAVE ME INDICATION THAT MR. BUNDY HAD
INDICATED HE WOULD ACCEPT & PLEA BARGAIN FOR LIFE
SENTENCES. SO THAT WAS THE WAY THAT BEGAN AND
MILLARD FARMER THEN BECAME INVOLVED WITH IT INSOFAR
AS TALKING TO TED SECAUSE THAT HAD BEEN A DIFFERENT
ANSWER THAT I HAD GOTTEN WHEN I SPOKE WITH TED,
THAT I HAD TALKING-- FROM SPEAKING WITH TED.

Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THE NEGOTIATIONS
WERE SETWEEN YOU AND THE STATE CONCERNING THIS PLEA
AGREEMENT?

A. BASCIALLY IT WAS TO ENTER A PLEA OF
GUILTY TO ALL THREE OF THE PENDING MURDER CHARGES,
THE TWO IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE AND WON IN THE LAKE
CITY CASE PLUS ALL THE AFFILIATED CHARGES, THE
URGLARIES AND SO FORTH THAT WENT WITH IT. AND IN

XCHANGE FOR THE PLEA THE STATE WE WOULD JOIN TO

RECOMMEND THREE CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES WHICH

CARRIED TWENTY FIVE YEARS EACH WITHOUT THE

POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE OR A REAL LIFE SENTENCE OF 75


24

25)

YEARS WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PATROL PLUS
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ON EVERYTHING ELSE.

Q- NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER THE STATE
AND YOUR OFFICE WERE ASLE TO AGREE ON THE TERMS OF
AN AGREEMENT, PLEA AGREEMENT, THAT WAS PRESENTED TO

MR. BUNDY?

A. YES, WE WERE.
Q. AND WHAT WAS THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT?

A. BASCIALLY WHAT I JUST SAID-. THREE
CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES WITH TWENTY FIVE YEARS,
NO PATROL, ON EACH AND GUILTY PLEAS ON ALL THE
ATTENDING CHARGES.

Q. NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME WHO, ON THE STATES
SIDE, APPROVED THIS AGREEMENT?

A. ULTIMATELY IT WAS APPROVED BY THE TRIAL
PROSECUTORS AS WELL AS THE STATE ATTORNEYS FOR THE
BOTH CIRCUITS AND THEY SIGNED IT. THE JUDGES ALSO--
T DON'T KNOW IF-- DID YOU ASK ME WHETHER THE JUDGES
APPROVED IT OR NOT?

Q- YES. IT WANTED TO KNOW IF-- ACTUALLY, LET
ME ASK YOU TO IDENTIFY EVERYSODY THAT APPROVED IT.

A. EVERYBODY WHO WAS INVOLVED WITH THE CASE
WHICH INCLUDE THE THE JUDGES. THERE WERE
CONFERENCES WITH THE JUDGE'S IN BOTH CASES TELLING

THEM WHAT THE AGREEMENT WAS, ASKING IF THEY WOULD


a

a

concur. THEY DID CONCUR. THE STATE ATTORNEYS
OFFICE IN EACH OF THE TWO CIRCUITS MADE CONTACT
WITH ALL THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT WERE
INVOLVED AND WITH THE FAMILY’S OF ALL THE VICTIMS

AND THE VICTIMS WHO HAD SURVIVED.

Q. DID ALL OF THEM AGREE TO THE PLEA
BARGAIN?

A. Yes.

Q. MR. MINERVA, DID YOU CONSIDER THIS

AGREEMENT TO BE IN MR. BUNDY'S INTEREST?

A. YES, I DID.
Q. CAN YOU TELL THE COURT WHY?
A. I CONSIDERED THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE

STATE HAD COMBINED WITH THE GREAT. AMOUNT OF PRE
TRIAL PUBLICITY WOULD HAVE MADE IF HIGHLY LIKELY
THAT THE STATE WOULD HAVE BEEN ASLE TO SECURE
CONVICTIONS IN AT LEAST THE CHI OMEGA CASE. AND
THAT THE POSSIBILITY WAS ALSO VERY GREAT BECAUSE OF
THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSES AND IN WEIGHING THE
STATUTORY AGGRIVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
THERE IN THE FLORIDA DEATH PENALTY STATUTE THAT MR.
BUNDY WOULD VERY LIKELY RECEIVE A DEATH SENTENCE OR
SEVERAL DEATH SENTENCES. TO AVOID THAT POSSIBILITY
AND KEEP HIM ALIVE, WITH THE HOPE THAT STAYING

ALIVE IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN BEING DEAD, THAT THAT


24

25

WAS DEFINITELY IN HIS BEST INTEREST. BECAUSE THE

ALTERNATIVE I SAW WAS GOING TO TRIAL AND BEING

CONVICTED ANYWAY AND GETTING THE DEATH SENTENCE.
Q. DURING NEGOTIATIONS DID you HAVE AN

OPINION ABOUT WHETHER MR. BUNDY WOULD ACCEPT SUCH

AN AGREEMENT?

A. YES, I HAD AN OPINION.

Q- WHAT WAS. THAT OPINION?

A. THAT HE WOULD NEVER GO THROUGH WITH IT.
Q- WHY DID YOU HAVE THAT OPINION?

A. JUST FROM EVERY ACTION THAT HE HAD TAKEN

BURING THE TIME THAT I HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH

HIM. HIS-- WHAT I SPOKE OF EARLIER, HIS INABILITY
TO STICK TO A COURSE OF ACTION, THE CHANGING NATURE
OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING TO US. DURING THE TIME THAT
THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE GOING ON RIGHT FROM THE VERY
OUTSET WHEN I APPROACHED HIM ABOUT IT HE TOLD ME HE
WOULDN'T-- DIDN'T WANT TO CONSIDER IT. THEN THROUGH
MILLARD FARMER AND ULTIMATELY FROM TED HIMSELF
AFTER HE TALKED TO MR. FARMER SAYING THAT HE WOULD
ACCEPT IT. THE EVENT-- THE FIRST DAY THAT WE WENT
TO LAKE CITY TO TALK TO THE PROSECUTOR AND THE
JUDGE ABOUT THE CASE WE WENT TO THE JAIL TO SEE MR.
BUNDY IN THE MORNING TO GET HIS PERMISSION TO MAKE

THAT OVERTURE. WHILE WE WERE GONE HE CALLED THE


OFFICE AND LEFT A LIST OF INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT WE
WERE TO DO TO PREPARE FOR THE TRIAL. SO HE HAD US
GOING IN TWO DIRECTIONS AT ONCE ON THAT SCORE AND
THEN HIS CONTINUED ATTITUDE ABOUT THE PLEA DURING
THE TIME THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE GOING ON. EVEN
WHEN HE TOLD ME HE WOULD ACCEPT IT HE ALWAYS HAD
SOME HOLD BACK QUESTION, RESERVATIONS, AND JUST
FROM THE NATURE OF THE WAY HE HAD BEHAVED THE WHOLE
TIME I DID NOT THINK HE WAS ABLE TO GET UP IN COURT
AND ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY.

Q- NOW, DID YOU HAVE AN OPINION ASOUT THE
EFFECT OF THE NEGOTIATION ON MR. BUNDY'S SUBSEQUENT
TRIAL IF HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT?

A. WE WERE AFRAID THAT IF THE WORD GOT OUT
THAT HE WAS WILLING TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY THAT
THAT WOULD PRECONDITION ANY POTENTIAL JUROR
ANYWHERE IN THE CIRCUIT, PROBABLY ANY PLACE IN THE
STATE, BECAUSE OF THE WIDE SPREAD PUBLICITY THERE,
INTO BELIEVING HE WAS GUILTY AND THIS WOULD MAKE IT
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO GET A
FAIR TRIAL AFTER THAT.

Q. DID YOU ADVISE MR. BUNDY OF THAT FACT?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. AND DID HE PERMIT YOU TO GO FORWARD WITH

THE NEGOTIATION?


oo,

Na

24

25

Qe LET ME ASK YOU TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT NINE
AND TEN.

A. YES, SIR.

Q. FIRST TAKE EXHIBIT NINE IN WHICH YOU

DID-~ CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS EXHIBIT?

A. YES. THIS IS A MEMORANDUM THAT IS DATED
MAY 29 WHICH RECAPS THE EVENTS THAT LED UP TO THE
ATTEMPT TO ENTER A PLEA.

Q. AND EXHIBIT TEN?

A. EXHIBIT TEN IS A MEMORANDUM THAT I
DICTATED. I BELIEVE I WAS IN MY CAR AFTER I LEFT
THE JAIL AND WAS ON THE WAY TO THE COURTHOUSE TO
MEET WITH THE PROSECUTORS AND THIS WAS IN BETWEEN
THE TIME THAT I HAD BEEN AT THE JAIL TALKING WITH
MR. BUNDY AND OTHERS FINALIZING THE PLEA AGREEMENT
GETTING THE SIGNED PLEA AGREEMENT FROM HIM AND
BEFORE WE MET WITH THE PROSECUTORS LATER THAT DAY.

QO. NOW, THIS MEMORANDUM DESCRIBES THE
CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH MR. BUNDY ULTIMATELY SIGNED

THE AGREEMENT?

A. YES, IT DOES.

Q- CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCE
WERE?

A. ON THE. 30TH?


o. YES. THIS IS 30 OF MAY, 1979?

AL YES. THE PLEA WAS SCHEDULED TO BE ENTERED
THE NEXT DAY AND AS OF THE AFTERNOON OF THE 30 WE
DID NOT HAVE MR. BUNDY'S SIGNATURE. IT WAS ONE OF
THE CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT THE
PROSECUTORS HAD ASKED THAT WE NOT GO FORWARD UNTIL
WE HAD MR. BUNDY'S SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT TO
ENTER THE PLEA AND SO EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS ORAL
AGREEMENT THAT HE WOULD DO IT WE HAD TO GET HIM TO
SIGN IT IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY HAVE A COURT SESSION
THE NEXT DAY AND TO GET THE PROSECUTORS TO SIGN. SO
THERE HAD BEEN FOR SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THIS A
NUMBER OF PEOPLE INCLUDING MR. BUNBDY'S MOTHER AND
OTHER FRIENDS WHO HAD VISITED WITH HIM AS WELL AS
MILLARD FARMER TRYING TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO ACCEPT
THE PLEA OFFER SECAUSE AGAIN EVEN THOUGH HE HAD
SAID HE WOULD DO IT HE HADN'T PUT HIS NAME ON THE
DOTTED LINE. AND I WAS TOLD THAT HE WAS WAIVERING
ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT IT EVEN AT THAT LATE DATE. so
WE WENT TO THE JAIL IN THE AFTERNOON OF MAY-- ON
MAY 30 TO GET THE SIGNED AGREEMENT AND WHEN I~
ARRIVED THERE SOMEOTHER PEOPLE HAD ALREADY BEEN
INTO SEE HIM OR WERE WAITING OUTSIDE. MR. FARMER
WAS THERE TALKING TO MR. BUNDY ALONE AND AFTER MR.

FARMER CAME OUT AND I WENT IN AND TALKED TO MR.


BUNDY ‘ALONE AND I HAD THE AGREEMENTS AND WE TALKED
TED AND I TALKED FOR ABOUT FORTY FIVE MINUTES ABOUT
WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO SIGN THE AGREEMENTS AND HE
JUST SEEMED AS PARALYZED THEN AS HE HAD 8EEN ON
OTHER OCCASION AS FAR AS GOING FORWARD WITH THE
DECISION. AND EVENTUALLY I KNEW WE WERE RUNNING
OUT OF TIME. I ASKED FOR MR. FARMER TO COME IN
BECAUSE HE SEEMED TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ASOUT
MR. BUNDY'S WILLINGNESS TO PLEAD, HAD MORE
INFLUENCE OVER HIM. I THINK MR. BUNDY TRUSTED HIM
A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HE DID ME AND I ASKED MR.
HARVEY TO COME IN SO HE COULD WITNESS WHAT WAS
GOING ON BECAUSE I KNEW THE PLEA HAD TO BE
VOLUNTARY AND I DIDN'T WANT THIS TO 8E A COERCEIVE
SITUATION SUCH AS IT WOULD LATER BE SAID THAT I HAD
DONE SOMETHING TO FORCE HIM TO ENTER A PLEA WHEN HE
DION'T WANT TO. SO, ANYWAY, THE THREE OF US SAT
THERE AND PONDERED IT AND MILLARD EVENTUALLY
PERSUADED TED WE HAD NO MORE TIME AND HE EITHER HAD
TO SIGN IT OR NOT SIGN IT. AND WITH GREAT
RELUCTANCE HE SIGNED BOTH AGREEMENTS.

Q. DID HE GIVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT WHAT
TO DO WITH THE SIGNED AGREEMENTS?

A. YES. I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS vUST TO

RENEW MY RECOLLECTION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THAT WAS.


my

OQ. YOU LOCK AT PAGE FOUR OF EXHIBIT TEN.

A. YES. HE DOES NOT WANT IT TO BE-- THE
ESCAMBIA PLEA OFFER-- WELL I GUESS BOTH OF THEM,
THAT HE WOULD NOT SIGN IT OR DELIVER IT UNTIL WE
WENT INTO COURT.

Q. WHAT WAS MR. BUNDY’ REQUIRED TO DO THE
NEXT MORNING IN COURT IN THE PROCEEDINGS TO ENTER
THE PLEA?

A. HE WAS TO ENTER PLEAS OF GUILTY AND OF
COURSE BE SUBJECTED TO THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT EACH

JUDGE WAS GOING TO PUT FOURTH TO INSURE THE

" VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA AND THE FACTUAL BASIS OF

THE PLEA AND HE WAS TO MAKE NO EXTRANEOUS
STATEMENTS. THE PROSECUTORS WERE VERY CLEAR ON
THIS THAT IF MR. BUNDY EQUIVOCATED AT ALL, IF HE
MADE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT HIS LACK OF TIME TO PREPARE
OR ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE REPRESENTATION HE HAD
RECEIVED OR HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE MR. FARMER
AS HIS LAWYER OR IN ANYOTHER WAY TO SEEM TO HEDGE,
THE DEAL WAS OFF, MR. BUNDY WAS TO ANSWER THE
COURTS QUESTION BUT WAS NOT TO GO INTO ANY SIDE

ARGUMENTS OR ATTEMPT TO EQUIVOCATE THE PLEA AT ALL.

Q.- WAS MR. BUNDY AWARE OF THOSE
ARRANGEMENTS?
A. YES. WE TOLD HIM.


24

25

Q. I'M SORRY?

A. WE TOLD HIM THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT.

Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO
HAVE HAPPENED.IN THE COURTROOM IN TERMS OF WHO
WOULD BE PRESENT AND HOW THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD GO
FORWARD?

A. WE HAD ASKED THE PROSECUTORS NOT To
DISSEMINATE THIS INFORMATION. WE WERE HOPING THAT
THERE WOULD BE VERY FEW PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM FOR
COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE IT WGULD VERY LIKELY
STARTLE MR. BUNDY OR HAVE AN UNSETTLING EFFECT ON
HIM TO SEE A BIG CROWD IN THERE PSYCHOLOGICALLY TO
STAND UP AND HAVE TO ADMIT GUILT TO CRIMES SUCH AS
THESE. SEEMED TO. BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER IF IT WAS
NOT IN A BIG EXCITED ATMOSPHERE WITH ALOT OF PEOPLE
WATCHING. AND ALSO IN THE EVENT THAT THE PLEA
OIDN'T TAKE THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE AS FEW PEOPLE
WITNESS THE FAILED ATTEMPT AS POSSIBLE-

Q- WERE THE JUDGES IN 80TH CASES PRESENT FOR
THE PROCEEDINGS?

A. YES.

Q. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT HAPPENED ON THE
MORNING OF MAY 31, 19797

A. YES, SIR. THE LAWYERS, THE DEFENSE

LAWYERS MET IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE AND 3


1 WENT OVER TO COURT FIRST, AS I RECALL. AND WHEN I
2 GOT THERE THERE WAS-- I DON'T RECALL EXACT SEQUENCE
3 OF EVENTS. IN ANY EVENT, MR. BUNDY HAD PREPARED A

4 TYPEWRITTEN MOTION WHICH HE WAS DISTRIBUTING OR

5 ABOUT TO DISTRIBUTE AS COURT WAS STARTING OR ABOUT

$ TO START. AND THE CONTENT OF THE MOTION IN EFFECT
z WAS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE ENTRY OF A PLEA

8 BECAUSE IT WAS A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL COUNSEL OR

g OTHER COUNSEL OR FIRE US AND, YOU KNOW, JUST

10 GENERALLY SAYING THAT WE WERE-~~ WE HAD NOT DONE OUR
11 JOB AND WE SHOULD BE REMOVED AS COUNSEL. AND WHEN

12 IT SAW OR GOT WIND OF WHAT THAT WAS I ASKED FOR A

13 RECESS SO THAT I AND THE REST OF THE DEFENSE

14 LAWYERS COULD TALK TO MR. BUNDY ABOUT WHAT HIS

15 INTENTIONS WERE.

16 Q. DID YOU HAVE A RECESS?
17 A. YES. WE DID.
18 Q. DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH

19 MR. BUNDY?

20 A. YES, I DID.
21 Q. CAN YOU DESCRISE THAT DISCUSSION?
22 A. WE WENT BACK INTO THE HOLDING CELL AND AT

23 VARIOUS TIMES MILLARD FARMER WAS THERE, I WAS
24 THERE, JOHN HENRY BROWN, WHO IS A LAWYER AND ALSO A

25 FRIEND OF MR. BUNDY’S, I BELIEVE ED HARVEY CAME


SIN. I'M NOT.REAL SURE WHAT THE EFFECT OF IT WAS..

OWE, WERE TRYING TO FIND SUT FROM MR. BUNDY WHAT WAS -

GOING. ON AND. WHAT HE PLANNED TO DO. AND I REMEMBER
MILLARD VIRTUALLY PRAYING OVER TED IN A SENSE TO
URGE HIM THAT AND CONVINCE HIM THAT THIS WAS IN HIS
BEST INTEREST, THAT THIS WAS VITAL. THIS 1s WHAT
WE HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR THE WHOLE TIME WAS TO SAVE
HIS LIFE AND THAT HIS LIFE WAS WORTH SAVING. AND
THAT THE ONLY WAY HE COULD DO THAT WAS TO ENTER
THIS PLEA AND THAT IF HE REJECTED THE PLEA THERE
WERE NO MORE CHANCES FOR PLEA AND THAT THE RESULTS
OF TRIALS WOULD BE DISASTEROUS FOR HIM. THEY WOULD
MEAN THE DEATH PENALTY. AFTER ALL OF THAT TED SAID
HE STILL DION'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO AND
MILLARD’S ASSESSMENTS WAS THAT THERE WAS A FIFTY
FIFTY CHANCE THAT TED WOULD ENTER THE PLEA. BUT WE
STILL DIDN'T KNOW. AND SO WE WENT BACK INTO THE
COURTROOM AND WE SAT DOWN. THE JUDGES WERE PUSHING
US TO RECONVENE. THEY WERE COOLING THEIR HEELS
WHILE WE WERE GOING THROUGH THESE DISCUSSIONS.

THEY WANTED TO FIND OUT-- THEY WERE ASKING US WHAT
WAS HAPPENING. SO WE WENT INTO THE COURTROOM NOT
KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND THE RECORD
WILL SHOW WHAT WAS SAID. t BELIEVE THAT I STOOD UP

AND SAID MR. BUNDY HAS A MATTER TO PRESENT TO THE


COURT AND SAT DOWN AND--

a. LET ME ASK YOU, WHEN YOU MADE THAT
REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT, DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA
WHAT HE WOULD DO?

A. , 7 DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE WOULD BO. HE HAD

NOT TOLD ME WHAT HE WOULD Do. SO IT WAS A SURPRISE

TO ME.
Q. AND WHAT HAPPENED?
A. HE OFFERED HIS MOTION TO RELIEVE US AS

COUNSEL AND DID NOT OFFER THE PLEA.

Q. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT WHAT
HAPPENED TO THE PLEA AGREEMENT? .

A. WELL, THE PROSECUTORS THEN IMMEDIATELY OR
SHORTLY AFTER HE LAUNCHED INTO IT, THEY WAITED
UNTIL HE FINISHED AND THEN HE WHEN HE HAD COMPLETED
HIS MOTION ATTACKING US AND ASKING US TO BE
RELEASED THEN HE SORT OF LOOKED AT ME OR SAT DOWN.
WE HAD A LITTLE WHISPERED DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL,
YOU WANT TO TRY TO ENTER A PLEA NOW THAT YOU GOTTEN

THIS OFF YOUR CHEST, AND PROSECUTORS DOWN THE TABLE

SAID NO DEALS, IT'S OFF.

Q- CAN YOU TELL ME, MR. MINERVA, WHAT WAS
THE EFFECT OF MR. BUNDY’S REJECTION OF THE PLEA
AGREEMENT?

A. WELL, THE EFFECT OF IT THEN WAS TO HAVE


e)

THE MATTER-- BOTH CASES GO FORWARD FOR TRIAL. THAT
WAS THE MEANING OF THAT.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE EFFECT OF THE
PLEA AGREEMENT WAS ON THE DEFENSE LAWYERS?

A. IT TOOK ALL THE WIND OUT CF OUR SAILS,
WHAT LITTLE WIND WE HAD LEFT AT THAT TIME. WE HAD~-
WE HAD BECOME QUITE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED IN THE
CASE. WE WERE PRETTY WELL EXHAUSTED. OUR
EXPECTATION HAD BEEN GOING UP AND DOWN WITH THE
CASE FOR A LONG TIME. WE THOUGHT WE HAD AN END TO
IT, TO & VERY COMPLICATED, TENSION FILLED
SITUATION. WE HOPED WE DID ANYWAY. AND THE
DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THIS BROUGHT ABOUT
PSYCHOLOGICALLY WAS QUITE A BLOW TO US AND-IN
ADDITION IT HAD THROWN US COMPLETELY OFF STRIDE IN
TRIAL PREPERATION. WE WERE ONLY LESS THAN TWO
WEEKS, I THINK, AWAY FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE
TRIAL. WE HAD INTERRUPTED THE VITAL TRIAL
PREPERATION TIME THAT OCCURS AND WAS OCCURRING IN
THE WEEKS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE TRIAL GETTING
WITNESSES AND PREPARING MEMORANDUMS ALL OF THE
THINGS THAT YOU DO TO GET READY FOR A TRIAL BECAUSE
WE HAD BEEN DIVERTED INTO THIS EFFORT TO BRING
ABOUT THE PLEA AGREEMENT. AND SO WE LOST VERY

VALUABLE TIME AT A VERY CRITICAL TIME IN CASE


PREPERATION.

Q. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PLEA AGREEMENT
WAS REJECTED?

A. THAT DAY OR SUBSEQUENT?

QO. SUBSEQUENT. WHAT WAS THE NEXT EVENT THAT
YOU RECALL?

A. WE MADE SOME MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE. WE
ALSO MADE A MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL AND
THEN WE ALSO WENT FORWARD WITH THE PSYCHIATRIC
EVALUATION OR REQUESTED A COMPETENCY HEARING.

Q. NOW, CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER BEFORE THE
PLEA AGREEMENT WAS REJECTED WHETHER You HAD
DISCUSSED WITH MR. SUNDY ISSUES RELATING TO HIS

COMPETENCY OR HIS SANITY?

A. YES, I HAD.
Q.' AND DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS?
A. I HAVE A MEMO ON IT. WETVE DISCUSSED IT

UPON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS.

Q. EXHIBIT ELEVEN.

A. ALL RIGHT, SIR. WELL ON MARCH
TWENTY-SECOND WE TALKED ABOUT IT ABOUT THE QUESTION
OF COMPETENCY. AND MR. BUNDY AT THAT TIME AGREED TO
SUBMIT TO A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION. WE HAD
DISCUSSED ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF AN INSANITY

DEFENSE AND FOR THOSE TWO REASONS I SUGGESTED OR WE


SUGGESTED A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION. WE ASKED HIM

TO DO THAT.

Q. BID HE SUBMIT TO IT?

A. HE AGREED WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

Q. WHAT WAS THOSE CONDITIONS?

A. NO PUBLIC RECORD OF THE EXAMINATION AND

THE RESULTS WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED.
Q. WAS IT HIS AGREEMENT AT THE TIME THE

RESULTS WOULD THEN BE USED FOR A&A COMPETENCY

PROCEEDING?
A. IT REALLY DON'T RECALL.
Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER IN MARCH OF 1979

YOU BELIEVED THAT COMPETENCY WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS

CASE? _
A. . YES, I DID.
Q.° DID YOU BELIEVE THAT INSANITY MIGHT 8E AN

ISSUE IN THE CASE?

A. YES, I DID.

Q- WERE YOU ABLE TO PURSUE THE INSANITY
DEFENSE?

A. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO OFFER IT. NO, SIR.

Q- WHY WAS THAT?

A. MR. BUNDY DID NOT WANT US TO DO THAT.

Q- DID YOU PURSUE THE QUESTION OF HIS
COMPETENCY?


©

AL YES, I OID.

Qe CAN YOU TELL, DESCRISE TO THE COURT HOW
YOU WENT ABOUT DOING THAT?

A. WE CONTACTED DR. EMANUAL TANAY A
PSYCHIATRIST IN DETROIT AND ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD
BSE WILLING TO DO THE EVALUATION AND HE SAID HE
WOULD AND I SENT HIM A GROUP OF MATERIALS ABOUT THE
CASE. I SENT HIM A LETTER EXPLAINING WHERE WE WERE
IN THE CASE AND HE ISSUED A PRELIMINARY REPORT
BASED ON THOSE MATERIALS INDICATING THAT HE THOUGHT
THAT MR. BUNDY HAD-~- IT WAS A&A PROBABILITY HE HAD
PSYCHIATRIC OR THE NEED FOR PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION
TO DETERMINE 80TH THE SANITY QUESTION AND THE

COMPETENCY QUESTION.

Q. LET ME ASK YOU TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT
THIRTEEN.

A. THIRTEEN?

Q. YES.

A. YES.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THIS LETTER IS?

A. YES. THIS LETTER WAS A FOLLOW UP. It

WAS A LETTER THAT I WROTE TO DR. TANAY. IT WAS A
FOLLOW UP TO A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH
HIM EXPLORING THE IDEA OF HIM DOING THE EVALUATION

AND THIS IS THE LETTER IN WHICH I EXPLAINED THE


24

25

ISSUES AND THE VARIOUS CASES, THE EVIDENCE AND THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES AS I SAW THEM.

Q. AND THIS LETTER SETS OUT THE ISSUES IN
BOTH THE CHI OMEGA CASE AND LAKE CITY CASE. ts
THAT CORRECT?

AL YES.

THE COURT: MR. MINERVA OUT OF ALL THE
PSYCHIATRISTS WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO SEEK OUT DR.
TANAY IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

. THE WITNESS: I ASKED MILLARD FARMER WHO
HE WOULD USE AND MR. FARMER RECOMMENDED DR. TANAY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

BY MR. COLEMAN:

Q. NOW WILL YOU TAKE A LOOK AT EXHIBIT 14.
A. YES, SIR.

Q. CAN YOU IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT?

A. YES, SIR-

Q. WHAT IS IT?

A. THAT IS A LETTER THAT DR. TANAY WROTE TO

ME DATED APRIL 27, 1879 AND IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO
THE-- MY LETTER TO HIM WHICH IS EXHIBIT THIRTEEN.
Q. NOW ON PAGE FOUR OF DR. TANAY'S LETTER

LAST PARAGRAPH HE SAID, THAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS


os

THAT MR. BUNDY SHOULD UNDERGO PSYCHIATRIC
EVALUATION INDEPENDENT OF HIS WISHES. DID YoU
ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION?

A. YES, I DID.

Oo.) AND WAS A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION OF MR.

BUNDY PERFORMED?

A. YES, IT WAS.

Q. BY WHOM?

A. BY DR. TANAY.

Q. WILL YOU LOOK AT EXHI@IT FIFTEEN, PLEASE?
A. YES, SIR.

Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS?

A. YES. THIS IS THE REPORT OF DR. TANAY THAT
HE WROTE AFTER EXAMINING MR. BUNDY.

Co. NOW YOU RECEIVED THIS REPORT PRIOR TO THE
TIME THAT MR. BUNDY APPEARED IN COURT ON MAY 31,
1979 TO ENTER THE PLEA AGREEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. DID YOU TAKE ANY ACTION IN LIGHT OF THIS
REPORT TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU SHOULD PROCEED WITH

THE PLEA AGREEMENT?

A. YES, SIR, I DID.
Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT WAS?
A. IT CALLED DR. TANAY AND I TOLD HIM WHAT

WAS IN THE WORKS, THAT THERE WAS A PLEA AGREEMENT


24)

25/

CONTEMPLATED AND ASKED HIM IF HIS OPINION WOULD BE
DIFFERENT IF MR. BUNDY IN FACT ENTERED A PLEA TO
THE CHARGES RECEIVING THE LIFE SENTENCE. AND THEN
DR. TANAY GAVE ME HIS RESPONSE.

Q.. WHICH WAS?

A. THAT IF MR. BUNDY WERE ACTUALLY To GO
THROUGH WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT IT WOULD BE
EVIDENCE OF HIS RATIONALITY WHICH WOULD DEMONSTRATE
COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL. 8UT DR. TANAY EXPRESSED
GREAT RESERVATIONS MR. BUNDY WOULD ACTUALLY 8E ABLE
TO GO THROUGH WITH THE AGREEMENT 8ECAUSE OF HIS
MENTAL ILLNESS.

Q. LET ME ASK YOU TO LOOK AT EXHIBIT SIXTEEN
AND WILL YOU IDENTIFY THAT DOCUMENT?

AL! YES, SIR. THAT IS A MEMORANDUM THAT I
PREPARED OF MY CONVERSATIONS WITH DR. TANAY.

Q. AND THIS IS THE CONVERSATION THAT You
JUST DESCRIBED? ,

AL YES, SIR.

Q. MR. MINERVA, IF YOU WILL RETURN TO
EXHIBIT FIFTEEN, PAGE EIGHT?

A. Yes.

Q. THIS IS OR. TANAY'S REPORT TO YOU AND iN

THE FULL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE EIGHT JUST ABOVE THE

MIDDLE HE SAYS THAT I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT IN THE


oo

UNLIKELY EVENT THAT THE PROSECUTION’S CASE AGAINST
HIM, MEANING MR. BUNDY, WOULD WEAKEN HE WOULD
THROUGH HIS BEHAVIOR BOLSTER: THE PROSECUTION CASE.
NOW CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER YOUR O8SERVATIONS OF

MR. BUNDY WERE CONSISTENT WITH THIS PREDICTION?

A. YES, THEY WERE.

Q. AND DID THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IN FACT
OCCUR?

A. YES, IT OID.

Q. LET ME ASK YOU TO TURN TO PAGE NINE. THE

FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH DR. TANAY WRITES, I HAVE
DISCUSSED WITH MR. BUNDY HIS APPRAISAL OF THE
EVIDENCE HELD AGAINST HIM. IT IS HIS VIEW THAT THE
CASE AGAINST HIM IS WEAK OR EVEN FRIVOLOUS. WAS
THAT ALSO MR. BUNDY'S EVALUATIONS OF THE CASE BASED
ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF HIS OPINION?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. AND WAS-~ NOW YOU INDICATED THAT
FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT A
MOTION WAS FILED SEEKING A COMPETENCY HEARING. 1s

THAT CORR ECTRN

A. YES.
Q. AND YOUR OFFICE FILED A MOTION?
A. I BELIEVE WE DID. WE ASKED FOR IT IN SOME

FASHION. I THINK THE PROSECUTION MAY HAVE ALSO


ASKED FOR IT AFTER THAT.

Q@: AND CAN YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT MR.
BUNDY'S REACTION WAS?

A. MR. BUNDY'S REACTION WAS THAT HE DID NOT
WANT TO SE FOUND INCOMPETENT AND HE DID NOT WANT US
TO ADVOCATE HIS INCOMPETENCE TO THE couRT.

Q. DID YOU REPRESENT MR. BUNDY AT THE

COMPETENCY HEARING?

A. NO. I DID NOT.

g- WHO DID?

A. BRIAN HAYES.

Q. DID YOU TESTIFY AT THE COMPETENCY
HEARING?

A. NO. I DID NOT.

Q. DID ANY OF THE TESTIMONY THAT you HAVE

GIVEN HERE TODAY COME OUT AT THE COMPETENCY
HEARING?
A. IT MADE A PROFER OF A PORTION OF SOME OF

WHAT'S COME OUT TODAY.

Q. AND THAT WAS PRELIMINARY TO THE ACTUAL
HEARING?

A. YES, IT WAS.

Qe DID ANY OF THE LAWYERS WHO WORKED IN YOUR

OFFICE TESTIFY AT THE HEARING?

A. NO, SIR.


1 Q. DO -YCU KNOW WHETHER THE PSYCHIATRIST WHO

ans f
ve 2 TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

3 INTERVIEWED YOU OR ANY OF THE LAWYERS IN YOUR

4 OFFICE?

5 AL. HE DID NOT.

6 Q. FOR THE RECORD, MR. MINERVA, WHAT WAS THE

7 RESULT OF THE COMPETENCY HEARING?

8 A. MR. BUNDY WAS FOUND COMPETENT TO STAND

g TRIAL.

190 Q. AND DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE TRIAL ACTUALLY

V1 BEGAN?

42 A. I BELIEVE THAT THE JURY SELECTION IN LEON
eS 13 COUNTY BEGAN ON THE FIFTEENTH OF JUNE, IN THAT

14) VICINITY. .

15 Q. SHORTLY AFTER THE COMPETENCY HEARING?

16 AL: SHORTLY AFTER THE COMPETENCY HEARING,

18 Q. DID YOU PERSONALLY CONTINUE TO REPRESENT
19 MR. BUNDY AFTER THE COMPETENCY HEARING?

20 A. TO A VERY LIMITED EXTENT ONLY AND THAT
21 WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE BITE MARK EVIDENCE.

22 Q. AND WHY WAS THAT?

23 A. MR. BUNDY HAD MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK ON
24 ME AND I TRIED TO PUT THAT ASIDE. I EXPLAINED To

NLA 25 THE COURT WHEN I MADE THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THAT I


~

THOUGHT THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME VESTIGES OF
RESENTMENT THAT I WOULD NEVER SEEN ABLE TO GET RID
OF AND, THAT THOSE MIGHT PREVENT ME FROM BEING AS
ZEALOUS AN ADVOCATE ON HIS BEHALF AS I SHOULD 8E
AND I WAS WORRIED THAT I WOULD DO THINGS MAY BE
EVEN SUBCONSCIOUSLY THAT MIGHT BE DAMAGING TO MR.
BUNDY. SO THAT WAS ONE REASON. OTHER REASON WAS
THAT MR. BUNDY, IN. HIS MOTION, HAD MADE STATEMENTS
ABOUT ME PROFESSING A BELIEVE IN HIS ALLEGED GUILT.
AND THAT STATEMENT HAD RECEIVED WIDE SPREAD
DISSEMINATION IN THE MEDIA. I WAS AFRAID THAT IF I
PARTICIPATED TO ANY REAL SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT IN HIS
DEFENSE THAT JURORS WOULD "REMEMBER THAT STATEMENT
AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY WOULD THINK THAT I WAS BEING
HYPOCRITICAL IN TRYING TO ARGUE CN HIS BEHALF WHEN
IT, MYSELF, BELIEVED HE WAS GUILTY. AND I THINK
THAT I. THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD 8E A VERY DAMAGING
POSTURE FOR ME TO BE IN AND WOULD COMPROMISE HIS
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

Q. COMPARED TO YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE AS A
DEFENSE LAWYER CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE EXPERIENCE
OF THE REMAINING ATTORNEYS WAS ON THE OEFENSE TEAM?

MR. MENSER: I'M GOING TO OBJECT. it's
MERELY HEARSAY AT THIS POINT. I THINK MR. MINERVA

CAN TESTIFY TO HIS INVOLVEMENT UP TO THIS POINT.


WE HAVE CTHER ATTORNEYS THAT CAN TESTIFY
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN GIVE HIS

IMPRESSION.

A. THE LAWYERS WHO WERE WHO CONTINUED ON IN
THE CASE FROM THE OFFICE WERE ED HARVEY-- AND THIS
WAS IN 18798. I THINK HE HAD HAD BEEN A LAWYER IN
OUR OFFICE FOR ABOUT THREE OR FOUR YEARS. HE HAD
THE MOST EXPERIENCE. HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED
TO THE BAR LONGER THAN THAT BUT HE DID NOT WORK
CONTINUOUSLY IN OUR OFFICE. LYNN THOMPSON WAS SAME
NUMBER YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. I'M NOT SURE THAT
EITHER OF THEM HAD EVER DONE A CAPITAL CASE BEFORE.
MARGARET GOOD WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AFTER I
IN EFFECT WITHDREW HAD NEVER TRIED A CASE OF ANY
SORT. SHE HAD BEEN AN APPELLANT LAWYER FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS, SIX OR SEVEN YEARS, AND HAD
HANDLED CAPITAL CASE BUT SHE WAS TOTALLY UNFAMILIAR
WITH THE TRIALS. THOSE WERE THE THREE LAWYERS WHO
WERE ASSIGNED THE CASE. SO MY IMPRESSION OF THEIR
SKILL AND ABILITY TO HANDLE THIS CASE WAS THAT THEY
WERE SEING ASKED TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE NOT
REALLY QUALIFIED To DO.

Q.° NOW DURING THE TRIAL DID YOU FIND
EVIDENCE IN MR. BUNDY'S BEHAVIOR THAT WAS

CONSISTENT WITH THE PREDICTION IN DR. TANAY'S


©

REPORTS?

A. YES.
Q., CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT BEHAVIOR WAS?
A. DISRUPTIVE, IN A WORD. DISRUPTIVE TO THE

COURT. THERE WERE OCCASIONS DURING THAT TIME WHEN I
WAS THERE THAT MR. BUNDY REFUSED TO COME OUT OF"HIS
CELL, HE MADE DEMANDS ON THE DEFENSE TEAM, HE CAME
INTO COURT SOMETIMES DRESSED IN A SWEAT SHIRT, GAVE
PRESS INTERVIEWS, BADGERED THE DEFENSE TEAM CALLING
THEM ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT MAKING THEM DO
THINGS THAT WERE DISTRACTING FROM THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN THE CASE. REFUSED OR WAS UNABLE
TO OR DIDN'T, I GUESS, WAS UNABLE TO REALLY Focus
ON A THEORY OF THE CASE. WE GOT A LOCAL ATTORNEY
NAMED ROBERT HAGGARD TO ASSIST US BECAUSE HE WAS
FAMILIAR WITH THE COURT STRUCTURE IN MIAMI AND WAS
FAMILIAR WITH THE KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE
SERVING AS JURORS AND WE GOT MR. HAGGARD TO HELP US
IN THE JURY SELECTION AND THEN HE STAYED ON FOR
AWHILE IN THE CASE. AND AFTER AWHILE MR. BUNDY AND
MR. HAGGARD HAD SEVERE FALLING OUTS WHICH LED TO
MR. HAGGARD'’S WITHDRAWING FROM THE CASE IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE TRIAL. AND THERE WAS THE CONSTANT--
AND MR. HARVEY CAN DESCRIBE-THIS BETTER THAN I CAN,

THE CONSTANT INTERPLAY BETWEEN MR. BUNDY AND


VARIOUS COUNSEL AS TO WHO WOULD DO WHAT AND
CHANGING OF MIND AS TO WHAT THE STRATAGY WOULD BE
PLUS THE OTHER INSTANCES I MENTIONED WITH OR.
SUBERON'S TESTIMONY WHICH I SAW.

Q. NOW DID YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER
MR. SUNDY WAS DOING THIS SOLELY TO DISRUPT OR
WHETHER THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BEYOND HIS
CONTROL?

A. MY OPINION WAS THAT HE WAS DOING IT
BECAUSE IT WAS BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND I BASE THAT
IN PART ON WHAT DR. TANAY’S REPORT HAD SAID AND THE
BEHAVIOR OF MR. BUNDY FIT THE PREDICTIONS OF DR.
TANAY.

Q.° DO YOU SELIEVE THAT MR. BUNDY'S SEHAVIOR

AT THE TRIAL AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF HIS CASE?

A.' YES, SIR.
Q. IN WHAT WAY?
A. WELL, SINCE THEY NEVER HAD A STRATAGY

THEY NEVER KNEW WHERE THEY WERE GOING. AND THERE

WERE SEVERAL WAYS TO APPROACH THE CASE. ONE, You
COULD JUST TRY TO WIN IT, HOPING FOR A NOT GUILTY.
AND ANOTHER WOULD BE TO-~ AND YOU COULD TRY TO WIN
IT WITH AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE THAT HE DIDN'T DO IT.
YOU COULD TRY TO WIN IT BY CREATING REASONABLE

DOUBT AS TO THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION CASE OR


. YOU COULD DECIDE THAT THE SEST YOU WERE GOING TO

COME OUT WITH WAS A HUNG JURY. YOU NEED TO KNOW
THAT BEFORE YOU START THE TRIAL BECAUSE YOU NEED TO
KNOW WHAT KIND OF JURORS YOU'RE GOING TO PICK. ARE
YOU GOING TO PICK JURORS WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO AGREE OR ARE YOU GOING TO PICK JURORS WHO ARE
GOING TO HANG UP? THERE'S NEVER ANY AGREEMENT
ABOUT THAT FROM THE BEGINNING. AND ALL THROUGH THE
TRIAL THE QUESTION OF WHAT SORT OF AN OPENING

STATEMENT TO PRESENT WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO

CONDITION THE JURORS FOR AS FAR AS YOUR DEFENSE,

WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO TRY TO SHOW? HOW WAS THAT
THEME GOING TO BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE EVIDENCE
AND THE ARGUMENTS TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE.
AND THEN WHAT DO YOU DO IF THERE'S A CONVICTION AND
HOW HAS THAT SET THE STAGE FOR WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO
DO IN PHASE TWO TO PREVENT THE DEATH PENALTY FROM
BEING IMPOSED? ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT GO INTO
THE MAKEUP OF TRIAL STRATAGY AND THEORY OF DEFENSE
WERE NEVER AGREED UPON WITH MR. BUNDY.

NOW THE DEFENSE LAWYERS HAD A GOOD IDEA
OF WHAT TREY WANTED TO DO BUT MR. SUNDY WOULD NEVER
ALLOW THAT TO BE IMPLEMENTED 8Y HIS DISRUPTION AND
8Y HIS CHANGING AND 8Y HIS INSISTANCE CERTAIN

WITNESSES BE CALLED OR NOT 8E CALLED OR CERTAIN


ra

QUESTIONS BE ASKED OR NOT SE ASKED. AND CERTAIN
ARGUMENTS MADE OR NOT MADE AND WHO WAS GOING TO
MAKE THEM AND KEEPING EVERYTHING IN A STATE OF
TOTAL DISARRAY. AND SO AS IT TURNED OUT, I MEAN, I
GOT OFF THE CASE FROM THE VERY SEGINNING BECAUSE I
FELT I HAD LOST ANY HOPE THAT. I HAD OF HELPING HIM
GR DEFENDING HIM. MR. HAGGARD DROPPED OUT OF THE
CASE FOR SIMILAR REASONS. WE HAD TO SEND OTHER
LAWYERS’ DOWN TO HELP WITH THE PENALTY PHASE BECAUSE
MR. BUNDY REFUSED TO LET US PUT ON CERTAIN
EVIDENCE. SO THE WHOLE THING WAS NOT A PLAN BUT A
REACTION DAY BY DAY TO HIS WHIMS AND HIS DESIRES
AND YOU COULD NOT, IN MY OPINION, CONDUCT A
COMPLICATED DEFENSE OF & COMPLICATED CASE WITH THAT
KIND OF ACTIVITY GOING ON.

Q. DID MR. BUNDY EVER EXPRESS TO YOU A
RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
STATE HAD AGAINST HIM?

MR. MENSER: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT
CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION ON THE ULTIMATE ISSUE HERE.
THE COURT: HE HAS ASKED IF HE-STATED IT
TO HIM. OVERRULED.
MR. MENSER: OKAY?
A. NO, SIR.

Q. DID HE EVER APPEAR TO APPRECIATE THE


24

25

EVIDENCE, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT
THE STATE HAD AGAINST HIM?
A.

NEVER.

Qa. DID YOU HAVE ANY ROLL IN MR. BUNDY'S
DEFENSE AFTER HIS CONVICTION IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE?
A. JUST TO SEND AN ASSISTANT TO HELP MR.
AFRICANO. I THINK, ULTIMATELY, I SENT TWO. AND TO
CONSULT FROM TIME TO TIME. BUT I DID NOT APPEAR AT

ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. I DIDN'T ARGUE ANY

MOTIONS. MR. AFRICANO DID THAT HE WAS THE LEAD

COUNSEL.
Q. AND WHO WAS THE ASSISTANTS FROM YOUR
OFFICE?
AL! LYNN THOMPSON. MIKE CURRAN, I BELIEVE

ALSO WENT DOWN FOR THE PENALTY PHASE. BUT LYNN WAS
THE LAWYER WHO WENT DURING ALL OF THE TRIAL THE
DIFFERENT PROCEEDINGS.

MR. COLEMAN: THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THE COURT: ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION?

I
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MENSER:
Q. MR. MINERVA, YOU DIDN’T OBSERVE MR. BUNDY

DURING THE LAKE CITY TRIAL ITSELF. DID You?

A. NO, SIR.


SA

Q. IF WE COULD, I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO

THE PLEA BARGAINING. OKAY?
'

AL YES, SIR.

Q.! YOU INDICATED BEFORE THAT DR. TANAI OR
TANAY SAID IF BUNDY ACCEPTED THE PLEA THAT WOULD BE
EVIDENCE HE WAS RATIONAL OR COMPETENT, BUT THAT IF
HE REJECTED THE PLEA IT WOULD BE A STRONG INDICATOR
HE WAS INCOMPETENT. IS THAT CORRECT?

AL. IN ESSENCE YES, SIR.

Q.: SO SASICALLY BUNDY'S BEHAVIOR DIDN'T
CHANGE. IT WAS JUST THE ACTION OF ACCEPTING OR
REJECTING THE PLEA BARGAINING WHICH WAS THE
CONTROLLING FACTOR IN DETERMINING COMPETENCY. Is
THAT CORRECT? .

A. WELL, IT WAS TIED TOGETHER. THE BEHAVIOR
AND HIS OUTLOOK WERE TIED TOGETHER.

Q.) IN FACT IF MR. BUNDY HAD AN ENTERED A
GUILTY PLEA WEREN'T YOU GOING TO HAVE TO PICK UP A
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT FROM DR. TANAY IN ORDER TO
ENTER THE GUILTY PLEA?

A. YES. HE WAS GOING TO SEND PLEA, A

WRITTEN FORM WHAT HE HAD GIVEN ME OVER THE

TELEPHONE.
Q. YOU"RE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT?
A. YES.


Qe YOU WOULD NOT DEFRAUD THE COURT?
A. I HOPE NOT.
Q- YOU HAD A CLIENT WHO YOU FELT WAS

INCOMPETENT TO GO TO TRIAL. IS THAT CORRECT?

A. YES, SIR.

Q. AND YOU WERE GOING TO ASK HIM TO PLEAD
GUILTY?

A. WELL, I HAD A CLIENT WHO HAD, THROUGH

WHAT HIS STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS INDICATED, WAS NOT
COMPETENT. AND I HAD A REPORT FROM THE
PSYCHIATRIST SAYING THAT THERE WAS A SERIOUS
QUESTION OF THAT CLIENT'S COMPETENCY AND AT THAT
POINT I KNEW THAT I COULD NOT GO FORWARD AND ENTER
OR ADVISE HIM TO ENTER A GUILTY PLEA WHERE HIS
COMPETENCY WAS QUESTIONED OR IN QUESTION. AND THAT
IS WHY .I SOUGHT A SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION FROM DR.
TANAY As TO THE RESULTS OF WHAT MR. SUNDY'S=- WHAT
HIS OPINION WOULD BE IF MR. BUNDY IN FACT WENT
THROUGH WITH THE PLEA.

Q. OKAY. SO GOING BACK TO SUNDY’*S SEHAVIOR
PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PLEA, THE FACT THAT HE WAS
INDECISIVE, COULDN'T MAKE UP HIS MIND, THAT DIDN'T
CHANGE. DID IT? BASED ON TANAY'S ASSESSMENTS
BUNDY was INDECISIVE WHETHER HE TOOK THE PLEA OR

NOT. RIGHT?


rs

AL WELL, HE WAS INDECISIVE AND HE CONTINUED
f
TO BE 'INDECISIVE.
Q. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MATTER OF

ESTABLISHED FACT WHETHER HE PLED GUILTY OR NOT.

A. IF HE WOULD HAVE ENTERED THE PLEA THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST DECISION THAT HE MADE AND
STUCK TO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH
HIS PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR.

Q. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS DEVISIVE WITH
COUNSEL PRIOR TO THE PLEA WHETHER HE HAD PLED
GUILTY OR NOT. THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE EITHER. you
WOULDN'T @0 BACK AND CHANGE FILE NOTES?

AL: I WOULDN'T CHANGE MY NOTES. ALOT OF
DEVISIVENESS OCCURRED AFTER THE PLEA.

a. YOU WERE GOING TO PRESUMABLY PUT BUNDY

BEFORE THE COURT TO ENTER A GUILTY PLEA. IS THAT

CORRECT?
AL! YES, SIR.
Q. AND HE WOULD GO UNDER OATH AT THAT TIME?
A. YES.
Q. AND YOU WOULD NOT COUNSEL HIM TO COMMIT

PERJURY. WOULD YOU?
A. NO, SIR.

Q. REFERRING TO RULE 3.172. DO YOU BELIEVE


THAT BUNDY COULD HAVE TRUTHFULLY ANSWERED AND
UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE TO WHICH THE
PLEA IS OFFERED, THE MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTY
PROVIDED BY LAW, IF ANY, AND THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW?

A. I THINK HE COULD HAVE ANSWERED.

Q. YOU THINK HE COULD HAVE ANSWERED THAT HE
WAS ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT To COUNSEL AT EVERY STAGE
OF PROCEEDING AGAINST HIM?

A. RIGHT. I THINK HE COULD HAVE ANSWERED
THAT.

Q. DO YOU THINK HE COULD HAVE ANSWERED THAT
HE UNDERSTOOD HE HAD THE RIGHT TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY
OR PERSIST IN THE PLEA THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE?
THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY JURY. THAT AT
THE TRIAL HE HAD THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
AT TRIAL, RIGHT TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES
ON HIS BEHALF, RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND
CROSS-EXAMINATION WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AND THE

RIGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF?

A. YES. I THINK HE UNDERSTOOD ALL THOSE
THINGS.

Q. DO YOU BELIEVE HE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF HE
PLED GUILTY, NOLO CONTENDERE, WITHOUT EXPRESS

RESERVATIONS, WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, HE WOULD


24

25

GIVE uP THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE MATTER?

AL YES, I THINK~- I THINK HE WAS
UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE THINGS.

Q. DO YOU THINK HE UNDERSTOOD IF HE PLED
GUILTY. OR AJUDGED GUILTY AFTER A PLEA OF NOLO
CONTENDERE THERE WOULD NOT SE. A FURTHER TRIAL ASIDE
FROM THE PENALTY PHASE, SO THAT BY PLEADING GUILTY
HE WOULD WAIVE THE RIGHT TO TRIAL?

AL YES. I BELIEVE HE KNEW HE WAS GIVING UP
HIS RIGHT TO TRIAL IF HE DID ENTER A PLEA.

QO. DO YOU THINK HE WOULD UNDERSTAND
ESSENTIAL TERMS ANY PLEA AGREEMENT INCLUDING
SPECIFICALLY THE OBLIGATION THE DEFENDANT WILL
INCUR AS A RESULT?

AL YES.

Q.. OKAY. SO HE COULD HAVE ENTERED A
COMPETENT PLEA?

AL! WELL, HE COULD HAVE, RIGHT. HE WOULD HAVE
UNDERSTOOD ALL THOSE THINGS IN MY VIEW.

Q. ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED WITH

CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, MR. MINERVA?

A. SINCE 1971. SO WHATEVER THAT IS.
Q. HAVE YOU EVER--
A.) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE OF YEARS


mm

Q.! HAVE YOU EVER VISITED FLORIDA STATE

PRISON?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. HAVE YOU VISITED RAYFORD?
A. YES, I HAVE.

Q- HAVE YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE LIFE
STYLE PRISONERS LEAD IN THE PRISON SYSTEM?

A. WELL, I KNOW THEY'RE LOCKED uP. I SEEN
THEM LocKep UP.

Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE, I GUESS THEY
CALL IT THE PRISONER HIERARCHY? HOW PRISONERS ARE
RANKED AMONG THEIR PEERS BASED UPON THE CRIME THEY
COMMITTED?

A. I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M FAMILIAR ENOUGH TO
SAY THAT I'VE HEARD THINGS LIKE THAT BUT--

Q.) You HEARD WHAT HAPPENS TO PRISONERS WHO
COME INTO THE PRISON SYSTEM HAVING ESSENTIALLY
ASSAULTED AND MURDER A YOUNG GIRL? AREN'T THEY
PRETTY LOW AT THE SCALE OF SOCIAL ORDER THERE?

A. I'VE HEARD THAT.

QO.) AND IN FACT IF MR. BUNDY ENTERED GUILTY
PLEAS FOR SEVENTY FIVE YEARS IN PRISON WITHOUT
PAROLE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE

SOCIAL RUNG OF PRISONERS. WOULDN'T HE?

A. . I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. HE WAS PRETTY


MUCH oF A MEDIA HERO. I DON'T KNOW. THAT MIGHT
HAVE cCounTER ACTED SOME OF THAT.

Q. INSOFAR AS COUNTER ACTING SOME OF IT HE
WOULD HAVE STILL FACED THAT PROBLEM?

AL I DON'T KNOW HOW HE WOULD HAVE SEEN
TREATED IN PRISON.

Q. DO YOU KNOW IF HE WOULD HAVE LIVED THE
WHOLE 75 YEARS?

AL, WELL, HE WAS ABOUT THIRTYSOMETHING THEN,
NO. I THINK THAT THE EXPECTATION WAS, ABSENT
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, HE WOULD SPEND THE WRIST OF HIS
LIFE IN PRISON.

Q. SO THEN MR. BUNDY HAD THE CHOICE OF
SPENDING THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON AS A MAN
WHO. MOLESTED LITTLE GIRLS AS OPPOSED TO SWIFT AND
ELECTRICAL DEATH IN THE CHAIR?

f

A. HE HAD A CHOICE OF. SPENDING. LIFE IN

PRISON (OR BEING SENT TO DEATH IN THE ELECTRIC
CHAIR. LIFE IN PRISON SOMETIMES RESULTS IN A
MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE. HE ALWAYS HAD THAT AS
HOPE. ‘WHENEVER YOU'RE ALIVE YOU HAVE THE HOPE THAT
YOU MIGHT BEEN ABLE TO GET OUT.

a. AND THAT'S BASCIALLY THE FOUNDATION TO
YOUR APPROACH TO THE CASE. LIFE IS WORTH SAVING AT

ALL COSTS. IS THAT CORRECT?


As WELL, MY APPROACH TO THE CASE AND FROM A
DEFENSE STANDPOINT IN A CAPITAL CASE AND THE FACT
THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN PRISON MANY TIMES LEARN To
LEAD PRODUCTIVE LIVES EVEN IN THE PRISON AND THEY
REFORM OR THEY'RE USEFUL IN HELPING OTHER PEOPLE
AND THERE'S JUST-- NOBODY CAN PREDICT WHAT THE
COURSE OF ONES LIFE IS GOING TO BRING OUT.

Qe IT'S JUST YOUR PERSONAL OPINION IT'S
BETTER TO LIVE THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IN PRISON AND
HOPE FOR THE BEST THAN TO GO TO THE ELECTRIC
CHAIR.) IS THAT WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO?

A. IF YOU'RE TALKING AGOUT AN-- I THINK
THAT'S A VERY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

Qe IS IT AUTOMATICALLY AN IRRATIONAL CHOICE
IF MR.:8UNDY DISAGREES WITH You? -

AL! NO.

Q., HE COULD HAVE RATIONALLY AGREED TO GO TO
THE ELECTRIC CHAIR?

AL YES. I THINK FOR SOME PEOPLE THE CHOICE
OF STAYING IN PRISON THE REST OF THEIR LIVES WOULD
NOT BE IRRATIONAL.

Qo.) LET'S TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT THE PROOF
THE STATE HAD IN THE LAKE CITY CASE. ACCORDING To
YOUR NOTES WHERE YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE PLEA

DIDN'T THE TWO ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEYS MR. DEAKEL


AND MR. —~ THE NAME SLIPS ME.

AL, MR. BLAIR WAS THERE.

Qe. DID THEY SPEAK TO JUDGE JOPLIN ABOUT THE
EVIDENCE IN THE LAKE CITY CASE?

YES, THEY DID.

a. DIDN'T THEY CHARACTERIZE IT TO HIM AS
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITH A LIKELIHOOD OF
SUCCESS FOR MR. BUNDY ON APPEAL?

A. THEY DESCRI8ED THE EVIDENCE AS SOMEWHAT
CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND THE FACT THAT AN APPEAL WOULD BE
TAKEN AND THAT THERE WAS ALWAYS UNCERTAINTY ASOUT A
CASE IN THE APPELLATE COURTS.

o. AS A MATTER OF FACT MR. BUNDY DOES HAVE
SOME SUCCESS ON APPEAL DIDN'T HE REGARDING

HYPNOTICALLY ENHANCED TESTIMONY?

A! THE COURT DIDN'T APPLY IT TO HIS CASE.
Q.. BUT HE DOES WIN HIS POINT LEGALLY?
AL * HE WON HIS LEGAL POINTS BUT HE DOESN’T

HAVE A WIN.

Q. ‘CAN'T WIN THEM ALL, MIKE. LEGAL THEORY
WASN'T IRRATIONAL. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AGREED
WITH IT?

A. ON THAT POINT HIS LAWYERS CONVINCED THE

Q. | AND IN A CHANGE OF THE FLORIDA LAW HE HAD


20

A REALISTIC ARGUMENT. IT WOULD BE APPLIED

RETROACTIVALLY TO HIS CASE IF HE WENT FORWARD?

A ON THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT
THE WHOLE CASE.

Q., IN FACT WHAT THEY HAD WAS TWO EYE
WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY HAD BEEN HYPNOTICALLY
ENHANCED AND FIBER EXPERT AND POSITIVE 8LOOD TYPE
SPECIMEN. WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS REALLY IT
IN THE) LAKE CITY CASE. WASN'T IT?

A. MR. MENSER I WOULD HESITATE AT THIS POINT
WITHOUT HAVING REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT
THAT WAS ALL OF IT. I KNOW THEY HAD SUBSTANTIAL
‘CORROBORATION AS TO HIM BEING AT THE SCENE 8Y
VIRTUE OF CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS SHOWING HE HAD
STAYED AT THE HOLIDAY INN. THEY ALSO HAD HIM
LINKED. TO THE VAN AND THEN THEY HAD LINKS TO THE
VAN FROM FIBER AND HAIRS FROM THE VICTIM. THEY
HAD--

Q. THOSE HAIRS WERE NOT POSITIVELY
IDENTIFIED AS BEING THE VICTIMS HAIR. WERE THEY?
A. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE POSITIVELY

IDENTIFIED.

Q. IT'S NOT A CRIME DRIVING AROUND NORTH

FLORIDA AND THERE WAS ALOT OF PEOPLE IN LAKE CITY

THAT DAY?


a

24

25

f
AL! WHAT I™M SAYING THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL

1
AMOUNT! OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I THINK THAT
WAS ALL--

Q. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE MCARTHUR CASE.

ARE YoU NOT?

A. Yes.

Qe SO ANY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE THE
STATE WOULD HAVE HAD TO REMOVE ANY REASONABLE
HYPOTHESIS OF GUILT. IS THAT CORRECT?

AL WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE LEGAL
DISTINCTIONS THE MCARTHUR case HAS BEEN
DISTINGUISHED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AND THE TEST
OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN FLORIDA I THINK IS
VERY mucH IN DOUBT.

Q.! DO YOU FEEL THAT HE HAD’ A FIGHTING CHANCE

IN ATTACKING THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THIS

CASE?
A. OH, YES.
Q. SO IF HE DECIDED TO GO TO TRIAL IT WOULD

NOT BE AN IRRATIONAL CHOICE?

A. NO. IN AND OF ITSELF THE DECISION TO GO
TO TRIAL IS NOT AN IRRATIONAL CHOICE.

Q.° MR. MINERVA, I'M GOING AT A SLIGHT
DISADVANTAGE HERE. I HAVE YOUR AFFIDAVIT AND FILE

NOTES THAT WERE SENT TO ME BY MR. COLEMAN. THEY'RE


I

f
NOT IN| THE SAME SEQUENCE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU
WHERE You WERE TALKING TO MR. BUNDY ABOUT THIS PLEA
BARGAIN. DOES MR. BUNDY INDICATE TO YOU HE NEEDED
TO SPEAK TO HIS FAMILY BEFORE ENTERING THE PLEA?

AL HE WANTED TO SPEAK TO SOME PEOPLE. NOW

WHETHER THAT INCLUDED HIS FAMILY I CAN'T RECALL.
IF IT'S IN A MEMORANDUM THAT I HAVE I MIGHT BE ABLE

TO GIVE YOU A MORE DEFINITE ANSWER.

|
g.! I'M TRYING TO ARRANGE THESE QUESTIONS TO

MATCH THE EXHIBITS. I WASN'T ABLE TO LINK THEM ALL
uP. ;

MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR JUST SO THAT THE
RECORD IS CLEAR MR. MENSER HAS A COPY OF THE
EXHIBITS THAT WE'VE BEEN USING. I THINK HE'S SEEN
WORKING FROM A DIFFERENT SET CF DOCUMENTS.

MR. MENSER: THAT IS CORRECT. I GOT A COPY

OF THE EXHIBITS THIS MORNING. IT'S JUST A MATTER

OF CROSS MATCHING.

BY MR. MENSER:

Q. _DO YOU CONSIDER IT AN IRRATIONAL AND
INCOMPETENT ACT TO CONSIDER CAREFUL A PLEA OF
GUILTY ‘WHICH WOULD LAND YOU THREE CONSECUTIVE LIFE

SENTENCES IN PRISON?

OS


aa 2 Q DO YOU THINK IT'S UNUSUAL A DEFENDANT

'
1 : A. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
|
i}
3] WOULD CHANGE HIS MIND A COUPLE OF TIMES, PERHAPS
4|° FOUR OR FIVE TIMES IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING
;
5] SUCH A PLEA?
6 AL! PERSONALLY A PERSON MIGHT VERY WELL

7 CHANGE, HIS MIND, YES.

8 Q. SO THE FACT MR. BUNDY VACILLATED AND

8 CHANGE, HIS MIND BACK AND FORTH THAT'S NOT TO YoU

10 PROOF THAT HE WAS INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL?

14 A. AGAIN THAT IN AND OF ITSELF CHANGING ONES
12 MIND 1s NOT EVIDENCE OF BEING INCOMPETENT OR

13 INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE--

14 Q.) IN FACT YOU YOURSELF HAD SOME DOUBTS AS
15 TO THE! DIRECTION YOU WERE TAKING IN THE CASE. DID

16 YOU NOT?
I

17 A. I ALWAYS Do.

18 Q.. BUT YOU'RE NOT INCOMPETENT?

19 Ae I DON'T THINK $0.

20 Q. AND REFERRING TO YOUR LETTER TO DR. TANAY

21 WHICH r BELIEVE IS EXHIBIT THIRTEEN, PAGE SIX?

22 A. ALL RIGHT.

23 Q.! THE LAST FULL PARAGRAPH BOTTOM OF THE

24 PAGE READ THAT PLEASE. WAS IT HE WAS UPSET WITH YoU

25 ALL WHEN THE TIME CAME TO PLEAD?


{

Ne

C

\

AL! HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPSET WITH US WHEN
TIME CAME TO PLEAD. HE NEVER TOLD US HE WAS GOING
TO MAKE THE MOTION TO HAVE US WITHDRAW AS HIS
COUNSEL. WHEN WE SET THE STAGE FOR HIM TO ENTER
THE PLEA IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO ENTER THE PLEA ALL HE
HAD TO.DO WAS TELL US BEFORE HE WENT INTO COURT AND
WE WOULD HAVE CALLED THE WHOLE THING OFF. THAT WAS
THE IRRATIONALITY.

Q. YOU INDICATE BUNDY THOUGHT ABOUT THE
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HE WAS DOING THE NIGHT BEFORE
WHILE DRAFTING THE MOTION?

A. I ASSUME HE DID WHENEVER HE WROTE IT.

Q@., SO IT WAS A CONSIDERED ACT HE HAD THE
RIGHT THEN?

|
A. YES. IT WAS TOTALLY INCONSISTANT WITH

WHAT HAD GONE BEFORE AND WHAT HE HAD AGREED TO AND
NEVER COMMUN ICATED TO us.

Q. MR. MINERVA, IF YOU WANTED TO PLEAD HIM
QUILTY IN A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE AND HE
FELT You SHOULD BE TRYING HARDER ON HIS BEHALF HOW
Is sucH A CLIENT CONCERNED ABOUT THE ZEAL WITH
WHICH HE'S REPRESENTED IRRATIONAL?

Ae - SIR, THE PERSON WHO'S BEING REPRESENTED
WILL TELL YOU IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO ENTER THE PLEA.

NOW-~


1
Q.) IN EVERY CASE?
AL! WELL BEFORE THEY GO BEFORE THE COURT.
1
Q.! YOU NEVER HAD A PLEA BARGAIN FALL APART

IN A FRONT OF A JUDGE?

AL I HAD HAVE ONE FALL APART AFTER THE
COLLOQUY STARTED-~-

Q.! AND IN EVERY INSTANCE WAS THAT PLAN--

SHE COURT: LET HIM FINISH.
MR. MENSER: ALL RIGHT.

AL! I HAVE NEVER HAD A SITUATION WHERE A
PERSON HAD AGREED IN ADVANCE TO ENTER A PLEA AND
THEN WITHOUT INFORMING ME OF A CHANGE OF MIND TO GO
INTO COURT TO ENTER THE PLEA AND THEN LAUNCH INTO
SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT THE PLEA.

Q.! BUT HE NEVER WITHDREW THE PLEA HIMSELF.
DID HE? HE NEVER WITHDREW HIS GUILTY PLEA OR
INDICATED TO THE COURT HE WOULD NOT PROCEED WITH
THE SIGNED AGREEMENT?

A. WELL. HE NEVER ENTERED THE PLEA.

Q. BUT HE DID ATTACKED THE COMPETENCY OF

THE ATTORNEYS WHO WERE TRYING TO GET HIM TO ENTER

THE PLEA. RIGHT?
A. IT WAS NEVER ENTERED.
Q. L&T ME GIVE YOU THIS SENERIO: SUPPOSE

MR. BUNDY HAD MADE HIS LITTLE SPEACH REGARDING

pg


So

24

25

ATTORNEYS SUCH AS IT APPEARS IN THE TRANSCRIPT. AND
THEN SUPPOSE AFTER ATTACKING YOU ALL THE COURT
f

GRANTED HIS MOTION TO REMOVE YOU AS COUNSEL. OKAY.
THEN SUPPOSE MR. BUNDY DID THE RATIONAL THING AND
ENTERED HIS GUILTY PLEA. HOW LONG BO YOU THINK IT
WOULD TAKE HIM TO VOLUNTARILY PLEA?

Asi WELL, HE KNEW THAT AT THAT POINT BECAUSE
WE HAD 'TOLD HIM IF HE MADE ANY EQUIVOCATING
STATEMENTS THE PROSECUTION WOULD WITHDRAW HIS
ASSENT TO THE PLEA. IT WOULON'T HAVE BEEN ENTERED.

Q. | FINE. EVEN IF YOU OVERLOOK THE POINT HE
WAS SETTING UP A COLLATERAL ATTACK I'M ENTEREING A
PLEA BECAUSE MY LAWYERS WON'T DEFEND HIM?

AL IT SERIOUSLY DOUBT THERE'S A COURT IN THE

WORLD THAT WOULD ACCEPT A PLEA GIVEN IN THAT

SCENERIO.

Q. I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT QUESTION, MR.
MINERVA?

AL WELL, I COULDN'T HAVE OFFERED THE PLEA

FOR HIM. IT COULDN'T HAVE SAID HE WAS GOING TO
ENTER A PLEA UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCE WITHOUT
FINDING OUT IF IT WAS A VOLUNTARY ACT ON HIS PART.
Q. ; YOU TELLING ME IF HE REMOVED YOU FROM THE
CASE YOU COULDN’T GO AHEAD AND ENTER A VOLUNTARY

PLEA OF, GUILTY?


oO

A.) HE COULD DO THAT.

Q.) I'M BACK TO WHAT I ASKED YOU BEFORE. IF
THAT HAD HAPPENED COULDN'T HE HAVE COME IN ON A
COLLATERAL ATTACK FORCED TO ENTER A VOLUNTARY PLEA
BECAUSE HIS ATTORNEYS WERE UNPREPARED?

AL! I'M NOT SURE 1 UNDERSTAND, MR. MENSER. IF
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN YOU'RE SAYING
THAT HE COULD HAVE DONE THIS, FIRED US AND THEN
GONE AHEAD ON HIS OWN RIGHT ON THE HEELS GF THAT.
ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY AND THE ASSUMPTION IS A
COURT wouLp HAVE THEN ACCEPTED THAT PLEA EVEN
THOUGH | IT WAS IN FACT COERCED AND INVOLUNTARY AND

I'M SAYING THAT THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN.

Q., ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ALLEN PLEAS?
“aL ves.

Q. STRATEGIC PLEAS OF SUILTY?

A. PLEAS OF CONVENIENCE.

a. ALLEN V. HALPIN?

A. YES.

Q. YOU'RE TELLING ME MR. BUNDY COULDN'T

REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT HE WAS ENTERING A PLEA

OF CONVENIENCE, WAIT A COUPLE OF YEARS, COME BACK

AND SAY, I LIED. MY LAWYERS WERE INCOMPETENT. I

WAS BOXED IN SO I ENTERED THE PLEA. YOU TELLING ME

HE COULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT?

17


=

co)

AL! IT DOSEN’T MATTER IF HE COULD HAVE OR
COULDN'T HAVE. THE ALLEN PLEA IS A NOLO CONTENDERE
i
PLEA AND THE STATE WOULDN'T ACCEPT NOLO PLEA.

THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN NO AGREEMENTS.

QO.) ASIDE FROM THAT THE STATE IS GOING TO DO

I'M TALKING ABOUT BUNDY RIGHT NOW, NOT WHAT THE
STATE WAS GOING TO DO OR SAY. I'M TALKING TO YOU
ABOUT MR. BUNDY. WOULDN*T THIS SE A STRATEGIC
CONSIDERATION ON HIS PART SOMETHING HE COULD DO IN
HIS OWN MIND?

A. I DON’T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN HIS

MIND.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT GENTLEMEN, LET'S

RECESS FOR LUNCH AT THIS TIME. PLEASE BE BACK AT

i
ONE THIRTY.

(AT THIS TIME A LUNCHEON RECESS IS TAKEN.)

12


@

A FT ERNOON SESSION

(AT THIS TIME THE JUDGE ENTERS THE COURTROOM.)

MICHAEL MINERVA, PREVIOUSLY SWORN,

RESUMES THE STAND.

: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT MR. MENSER, YOU MAY

PROCEED:
. MR. MENSER: WE HAVE NO .FURTHER CROSS
EXAMINATION.
| THE COURT: ANY REDIRECT.
/ MR. COLEMAN: NONE.
! THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR. YOU'RE
EXCUSED.
ALL RIGHT. YOUR NEXT WITNESS.
MR. COLEMAN: YOUR HONOR WE CALL EDWARD
HARVEY.

EDWARD HARVEY, SWORN

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. COLEMAN:


4 Q. MR. HARVEY, STATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE
7 2 RECORD, PLEASE?

3 A. EDWARD LLOYD HARVEY.

4 Q. _AND WHERE ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED?

5 AL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICERS, SECOND

6 CIRCUIT, STATE OF FLORIDA.

7 Q.) CAN YOU TELL ME HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN A

cc) A.) SINCE APRIL OF 1974.

10 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE YOU WERE EMPLOYED

11 IN 1978 AND 1979?

12 AL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE.
(a) 13 a. WHERE?
14 AL, IN LEON COUNTY, SECOND CIRCUIT.
15 Q. ; NOW IN 1879 DID YOU BECOME INVOLVED IN

16 THE DEFENSE OF MR. BUNDY?

17 Ae YES, SIR.

18 QC. AND CAN YOU TELL ME IN WHAT CAPACITY WERE

19) YOU INVOLVED?

20 AL. I WAS AN ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER AND

21 INITIALLY I WAS ASSIGNED MAINLY TO GO TO JAIL AND
22 SPEND TIME WITH MR. BUNDY ESPECIALLY WHEN HE WAS

23 TAKING DEPOSITIONS IN THE LAKE CITY CASE.

24 Q. | AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR ROLL WAS IN

co |
WS 25 CARRYING OUT THIS RESPONSIBILITY?


AL BASICALLY STAND BY COUNSEL. BASCIALLY
SAT THERE AND IF MR. BUNDY REQUESTED ANY ASSISTANCE
I WAS suPPoseD TO GIVE IT TO HIM.
Q.! DID YOU ASSIST MR. BUNDY TO PREPARE FOR

THE DEPOSITIONS THAT WERE BEING TAKEN?
i

A.) ° WHEN HE ASKED.
Q.' OTHERWISE YOU HAD NO ROLL?

AL) RIGHT.

@.| Now DO YoU KNOW ABOUT HOW MANY

DEPOSITIONS MR. BUNDY TOOK DURING THE TIME YoU WERE
ASSISTING HIM IN THIS MANNER?

A. SIR, I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A NUMBER. T
KNOW It TOOK WEEKS OF MY TIME DAY AFTER DAY MORE
THAN THIRTY PROBABLY MORE THAN TWENTY. :

Q. | AND AS A RESULT OF YOUR PRESENCE AT THESE
DEPOSITIONS WERE YOU ABLE TO CONCLUDE WHAT MR.
BUNDY'S PURPOSE WAS IN THE VARIOUS DEPOSITIONS?

AL ACTUALLY NO, SIR. I WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE

THAT CONCLUSION.

Q. WERE YOU A8LE TO EVALUATE THE USEFULNESS
OF THE DEPOSITIONS THAT WERE BEING TAKEN?

AL WELL, I DO KNOW THAT LATER ON WHEN WE GOT
ACTUALLY APPOINTED REPRESENT HIM IN THAT CASE MOST
OF THE DEPOSITIONS HAD BEEN-- HAD TO BE TAKEN OFFER

OVER. WHEN MR. BUNDY WOULD QUESTION A WITNESS HE


WOULD SOMETIMES TECHNICALLY ASK ALOT OF QUESTIONS
i

|
AND FIND OUT SOME OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT REALLY

EVER MADE A POINT. NEVER WENT TO ANY ISSUES OF THE
CASE.

Q.' NOW OTHER THAN THE THE ROLL AS STAND 8Y
COUNSEL FOR THESE DEPOSITIONS DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY
ASSUME |OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES IN DEFENDING MR.
BUNDY?.

AL YES, SIR. IN THE SPRING MY DUTIES WERE
ALSO TO BE INVOLVED THE CHI OMEGA CASE AND LATER ON
AT THE |TRIAL I PARTICIPATED IN DEFENDING HIM AT THE

i
TRIAL IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE IN MIAMI.

Q. IN THE SPRING? THAT'S THE SPRING OF
1979? | 7
i . ~
AL 1979. YES, SIR.
/

Q. | CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR ROLL WAS ON THE
DEFENSE TEAM?

A. | AT WHICH POINT?

Q. THIS IS ONCE YOU STARTED TO ASSIST IN THE
PREPERATION FOR THE CHI OMEGA TRIAL.

A. | AGAIN ALOT OF MY ROLL WAS TO GO TO JAIL,
SPEND TIME WITH MR. BUNDY AT HIS REQUEST.

Q. «DID YOU HAVE-- WELL, COULD You DESCRIBE
WHAT THIE NATURE OF YOUR CONTACT WAS WITH MR. BUNDY

DURING THIS PERIOD?


oOo

es

a

A.

f
i IT'S HARD TO REMEMBER ANY SPECIFIC ONE
f
OCCASION, BUT WHEN I WAS CALLED OUT THERE USUALLY
HE WAS-~ IT WAS BECAUSE MR. BUNDY HAD A SPECIFIC
REQUEST TO COME OUT AND PREPARE A CERTAIN-- HELP
HIM PREPARE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE CASE. WHEN WE
GET THERE WE WOULD TALK ABOUT SASEBALL OR RUNNING
OR HEALTH OR SOME THING AND USUALLY THE TIME WAS
WASTED: WHEN I WOULD TRY TO GET HIM TO CONCENTRATE
ON THESE VARIOUS ASPECTS AGAIN WE WOULD BASICALLY
WASTE TIME. NEVER ABLE TO DO THAT.

Qo.) WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS THAT WHAT

HAPPENED ON SOME OCCASIONS OR FREQUENTLY?

|
A. NINETY NINE PERCENT OF THE OCCASIONS.

Q. | CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT MR. 8UNDY’S ROLL WAS
IN DEVELOPING TRIAL STRATEGY IN THE CHI OMEGA CASE?

AL WELL, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN BUT HE
HAD MADE A PRO SE MOTION TO BE APPOINTED
CO-COUNSEL. JUDGE CORDE GRANTED THAT MOTION. AT
THAT POINT HE BECAME FAIRLY ACTIVE IN WANTING
CERTAIN, QUESTIONS ASKED, CERTAIN QUESTIONS NOT
ASKED, CERTAIN AVENUES PERSUED. ONCE WE GOT INTO
THE AcTHAL TRIAL IN MIAMI AT SOME POINT DURING
TRIAL THE COURT MADE HIM CHIEF COUNSEL AND AT THAT

POINT HE HAD THE AUTHORITY, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT FROM

THE JUDGE, TO MAKE ALL THE DECISIONS.


a. AND DID HE PROCEED TO EXERCISE THAT
AUTHORITY?

an YES, SIR

Q.! CAN YOU TELL ME, CAN YOU DESCRIBE, 8ASED

ON your RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. BUNDY AND YOUR
ABILITY TO OBSERVE HIM WHETHER HE WAS ABLE TO MAKE
DECISIONS IN THE PROCESS OF THE PREPERATION FOR THE
TRIAL?

AL WELL, HE NEVER MADE ANY DECISION THAT
LASTED. DION'T SEEM LIKE IT. AND WHEN WE WOULD
GET ON | TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE VERY IMPORTANT
ESPECIALLY DURING TRIAL EVEN WHEN. HE SUPPOSEDLY
MADE A DECISION IT WOULD SEEM LIKE AT SOME CRUCIAL

|
POINT HE WOULD BACK OFF THE DECISION AND PUT US AT
opps WITH EACH OTHER.

Q. | WERE YOU EVER ABLE To, WITH MR. BUNDY, TO
DEVELOP A DEFENSE STRATEGY FOR THE CHI OMEGA TRIAL?

A. WE THOUGHT WE HAD. WE WERE ALL IN MIAMI
AND MET WITH HIM AND WE ALL DISCUSSED WHAT EACH
MEMBER OF THE TEAM WOULD DO IN TERMS OF THE TRIAL.
THERE WERE MANY AREAS OF THE TRIAL AND EACH LAWYER
HAD SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO AND
WE THOUGHT WE HAD COME TO AN- AGREEMENT WITH
EVERYONE CONCERNED INCLUDING MR. BUNDY. BUT AS IT

TURNED OUT THOSE AGREEMENTS WERE NOT LIVED UP To.


Q.! CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED, AS YOU
SAY, AS IT TURNED OUT?

Ae I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. ONE EXAMPLE
WAS THAT WHEN IT ENDED UP THAT MYSELF, MR. THOMPSON
AND MISS GOOD WERE DOWN THERE WE REALIZED NONE OF
us ACTUALLY HAD GONE THROUGH A CAPITAL TRIAL. I
KNOW I) HAD HANDLED CAPITAL CASES BUT I NEVER GONE
TO TRIAL ON ONE AND MR. THOMPSON HASN'T AND MR.

i
HAGGARD HOWEVER HAD DONE APPROXIMATELY TWENTY FIVE
CAPITAL TRIALS. AND WE-- ALL OF US THOUGHT THAT
SINCE HE HAD HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WITH THE JURY IN
CAPITAL TRIALS THAT HE WOULD PICK THE JURY, MAKE
THE OPENING STATEMENT, MAKE THE SUMMATION AND AT
LEAST HAVE THAT CONTINUITY IN THE CASE. AND WE HAD
A PRETTY GOOD STRATAGSY AT THE TIME. BUT AS IT
TURNED |OUT WHEN WE WON SOME OF THE PRE TRIAL
MOTIONS AND LOOKED LIKE THE CASE WAS GOING OUR WAY
A Littue BIT, SOME OF THE EVIDENCE WAS KEPT OUT,
THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED-- I STARTED TO PERCEIVE MR.
BUNDY was ACTUALLY TRYING TO SABOTAGE OUR CASE.
AND BY THAT I MEAN HE GOT-- HE TALKED ONE OF THE
i

LAWYERS INTO GETTING UP AND TRYING TO PICK THE JURY
WHILE THE OTHER ONE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. HE
TALKED-~ WELL HE LET MR. HAGGARD DO THE OPENING

STATEMENT BUT OF COURSE HE PICKED SOMEBODY ELSE FOR
|


24

25

THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT
HE WANTED ME TO PREPARE THE OPENING STATEMENT AND
MR. HagcaRD TO PREPARE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND HE
WOULD MAKE UP HIS MIND WHICH ONE HE WANTED. HE DID
AT THE LAST MINUTE WITH MR. HAGGARD. IT WAS THOSE
KIND oF ISSUES THAT ONCE WE HAD DECIDED WITH HIM

AND WITH EVERYBODY IT WAS OFTEN CHANGED.

oO. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT WAS MR. BUNDY'S

ABILITY TO EVALUATE THE STATES CASE AGAINST HIM?

MR. MENSER: I OBJECT. I DON'T THINK

THERE'S BEEN A PREDICATE LAID FOR THAT QUESTION.

~THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q. DID YOU DISCUSS THE STATES CASE WITH MR.
BUNDY? | _

Aw! YES, SIR.

Q.: AND DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT HIS

ABILITY TO EVALUATE THAT CASE?

A. YES, SIR.
Q. | WHAT IS THAT OPINION?
A. «I DON'T THINK HE COULD EVALUATE THE

CASE. HE COULD LOOK AT CERTAIN ISSUES IN THE CASE
AND biscuss THEM FAIRLY RATIONALLY ONE AT A TIME
BUT HE couLoN’T SEE THE WHOLE BIG PICTURE. HE
COULDN'T SEE HOW ONE ISSUE FIT WITH ANOTHER.

Qa. | NOW, YOU WERE AWARE OF THE PLEA