PETITION FOR CLEMENCY
TO HIS EXCELLENCY, JAMES S. GILMORE, III,
GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
ON BEHALF OF
RONALD DALE YEATTS
Submitted by:
Gerald T. Zerkin
GERALD T. ZERKIN & ASSOCIATES
530 East Main Street
Suite 800
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 788-4412
April 26, 1999
On April 14, 1999, in response to a resolution of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association calling for a
moratorium on executions, David Botkins announced, on behalf of
Attorney General Mark L. Earley, that *. . . Virginia has the
most fair, balanced and carefully implemented death penalty
system in the country.” He also stated that “juries carefully
deliberate before rendering a verdict. Mark Miner, speaking on
behalf of the Governor, concurred that the system is fair.
Consequently, Ronald Dale Yeatts seeks the commutation of his
sentence of death, to a sentence of life imprisonment, without
possibility of parole, based upon the fact that, in his case, in
one critical respect that literally meant the difference between
life and death, that system was anything but “fair, balanced and
carefully implemented,” and the jury was prevented from carefully
deliberating its verdict. (Ex. 1).
Ronald Yeatts killed Ruby Meeks Dodson. He did so during a
robbery committed with Michael Vernon, who suggested the idea of
a robbery and Ms. Dodson as the specific target, since he, not
Mr. Yeatts, was aware that she had money in her home. The issue
Mr. Yeatts raises here does not concern whether he committed the
offense, but whether he received the benefit of a fair, balanced
and careful deliberation by the jury which sentenced him to
death.
THE UNFAIRNESS AND IMBALANCE IN THE SENTENCING PHASE OF
YEATTS’ TRIAL
At the sentencing phase of his capital trial, the prosecutor
Uy,
went to great pains to demonstrate Mr. Yeatts' history of
criminal conduct while under the supervision of the Court. He
did not merely introduce Mr. Yeatts' criminal record, but,
instead, had a probation officer testify, item by item, as to the
date of each conviction, the sentence imposed, including the
dates of any period of supervised release, and his parole or
probation status on each date on which he committed the next
offense of which he was subsequently convicted. This was all
supplemented by the introduction of the sentencing orders for
each of those convictions. By this method, he established that
Yeatts:
(1) received a sentence of four years for statutory
burglary, which was suspended and was placed on supervised
probation for one year, and had the imposition of sentence on a
charge of grand larceny suspended for five years;*
(2) was.“under probation supervision” when he next committed
the crime of petit larceny and multiple crimes of statutory
burglary and grand larceny;
(3) had his first burglary sentence of probation revoked and
had his four year suspended sentence imposed, two years of which
was resuspended;
(4) was under “mandatory supervision” following his release
from prison when he committed the crime of trespassing, for which
he was next convicted;
(5) was under parole supervision when he committed the
crimes of statutory burglary (two counts) and petit larceny;
(6) had his parole revoked as a result of these latest
offenses;
(7) was again under parole supervision when he committed the
crime of trespassing, for which he was next convicted, but his
‘although defense counsel chose not to point it out to the
jury, each of the burglaries Yeatts had committed was of an
unoccupied, commercial building.
parole supervision was continued; and
(8) was discharged from parole supervision on September 19,
1989, which was ten days before the murder of Mrs. Dodson.
(JA 525-34).
In the course of this presentation, the prosecutor directly
asked the probation officer what Mr. Yeatts! probation or parole
status was a total of nine times, exclusive of the numerous
additional questions which elicited the facts concerning Yeatts'
supervisory status. This dramatic and compelling presentation of
Yeatts' record culminated in the following exchange between the
prosecutor and the probation officer:
Q. Mr. Williamson, beginning on March 3; 1980 and
ending effective September, 1989, was there any time
period when the defendant was not incarcerated, on
parole supervision, or on probation supervision?
A. No sir.
(JA 534). The prosecutor then elicited from the probation
officer the services which the Commonwealth had made available to
Yeatts “to assist [him]” while he was under supervised release,
including substance abuse and employment counseling, as well as
counseling by the probation office itself. He further
established that Yeatts had failed to take advantage of these
services and was terminated from these programs due to his poor
attendance and lack of motivation. (JA 535-36).
In his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor harped
on this evidence as the basis for a finding of future
dangerousness.
... We know the defendant has been to court more than
once. He had his chance more than once. Matter of
fact, virtually every one of those offenses while he
was having his chance, while he was out under the
supervision of a probation or parole officer. In fact,
if you look at the time on some of this stuff, it's a
matter of days, and once you see the pattern, a pattern
that shows you clearly and convincingly up to September
23rd, 1989. You have a man that ... for ten years
almost, is either incarcerated, on parole, under the
supervision of a probation officer or on probation
under the supervision of a probation officer. They
can't keep him out of trouble. They do what they can
for him. He refuses to get help for his substance
abuse. He's in this, incarcerated, on parole, on
probation for ten years, right up until when, four
days, four days and Ruby Meeks Dodson is killed.
(JA 537-38). But for a brief entreaty to the jury to remember
the victim, that was the closing note of the prosecutor's
argument in favor of a sentence of death. (JA 358).
Mr. Yeatts tried to advise the jury, through either evidence
oer an instruction, that he would not even be eligible for parole
for at least thirty years. The trial judge refused to allow
either. (JA 519-21; 552).
That this evidence and argument had its intended effect is
plain. The only inquiry from the jury during its deliberations
was as to the number of years until Yeatts would be eligible for
parole. (JA 548). Thus, the only question in the jury's mind was
not whether Yeatts would be eligible for parole, but when.? When
it was denied an answer other than the prescribed direction that,
“in deciding sentence you will not consider the question of
parole...,” the jury returned with a sentence of death in less
2The entire question read: "How many years will the defendant
have to serve before he is eligible for parole if he's given life
plus the twenty years for armed robbery?" (JA 548).
5
than half an hour. (JA 548-50). Rejecting the Commonwealth's
argument in favor of a finding of “vileness” aggravator, the jury
found only future dangerousness as the basis of death
eligibility, and sentenced Yeatts to death.
Of course, regardless of its legality -- and the Virginia
Supreme Court ultimately held it was legal -- there was nothing
fair or balanced in this one-sided procedure, by which the
prosecutor was able to exploit the jury's concern about the
potential for Mr. Yeatts' release on parole, but Yeatts was
precluded from educating the jury about the reality of his parole
eligibility.
THE UNFAIRNESS AND IMBALANCE OF, AND LACK OF CAREFUL
IMPLEMENTATION IN, THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT’S
CONSIDERATION OF YEATTS’ COMPLAINT
In his appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, Mr. Yeatts
protested this plainly unfair, one-sided exploitation of the
issue of parole. Not unexpectedly, the Court tersely rejected
his argument. Yeatts v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 121, 410 S.E.2d 254
(1991). It was not unexpected because the Court had consistently
rejected the argument that juries should be educated about the
reality of parole eligibility, even when, as in Mr. Yeatts' case,
the prosecution had introduced the issue of parole eligibility
into the proceedings. See, Mueller v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 386,
408-09, 422 S.E.2d, 380, 394-95 (1992).
In Mueller, a case decided after Yeatts' case, the Court
noted that accurate evidence concerning parole eligibility is not
admissible even where, as here, there had been testimony
concerning the defendant's misconduct while on parole. Id. The
Court concluded that it “ha[d] drawn a clear distinction between
the admissibility of a defendant's parole history and evidence of
his future parole eligibility.” Id. (emphasis added). In so
holding, the Court relied on its identical ruling in Pope v.
Commonwealth, 234 Va. 114, 126-27, 360 S.E.2d 352, 360 (1987), a
case decided before petitioner's own case. See, Mueller, 244 Va.
at 409, 422 S.E.2d at 394.
Thus, the Virginia Supreme Court summarily rejected Mr.
Yeatts' claim despite the fact that it is undeniable that he was
sentenced to death in significant part because of an unfair and
unbalanced sentencing hearing which prevented Yeatts' jurors from
intelligently deliberating the sentence they considered
appropriate. Of course, the fact that allowing the prosecution
to so blatantly exploit the jurors' concerns about the
possibility of parole, while preventing the defendant from
explaining his parole eligibility, is legal, says absolutely
nothing about whether it is fair or balanced, or whether it
provides for the jury's careful deliberation of the appropriate
sentence.
THE LACK OF FAIRNESS AND BALANCE OF, AND LACK OF CAREFUL
IMPLEMENTATION IN, THE POST-CONVICTION SYSTEM THAT
CONSIDERED THE LACK OF FAIRNESS AND BALANCE IN THE
SENTENCING PHASE OF YEATTS’ TRIAL
Yeatts renewed his complaint about this procedure in his
federal post-conviction proceedings. The federal district court
dismissed Yeatts' due process claim based upon this unfair and
unbalanced procedure which had prevented his jury from
intelligently considering an issue it deemed important to its
deliberations of an appropriate sentence. (JA 923-26). The court
rejected the claim not because the procedure was fair or
balanced, but because of a legal technicality -- the “new rule”
doctrine.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit also did not address the
substance of Yeatts' complaint. Yeatts v. Angelone, 166 F.3d 255
(4th Cir. 1999). Like the district court, it did not find that
the procedure was fair or balanced, or that keeping the jury
ignorant of the truth about Mr. Yeatts' parole eligibility
allowed the jury to carefully deliberate his sentence.
Instead, the Court relied on yet another legal technicality
-- that Yeatts had procedurally defaulted his claim. The basis
of that conclusion was that, in his direct appeal to the Virginia
Supreme Court, Mr. Yeatts had based his claim on the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution -- i.e., that his
proffered evidence as to parole eligibility was a mitigating
circumstance -- while, in federal court he had based his claim on |
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ The irony,
however, was that the Court acknowledged that the Commonwealth
had itself failed to properly present this affirmative defense to
the district court and, therefore, had “lost” it right to argue
the issue of default. Nevertheless, the Court decided to save
the Commonwealth from its own procedurally default, and consider
the issue of Yeatts' default, in the interests of “comity and
federalism,” even though it is absolutely clear, from its
numerous other decisions on the issue, that the nature of Mr.
Yeatts' procedural default -- basing his claim on the Eighth,
rather than the Fourteenth Amendment -- did not affect the
decision of the Virginia Supreme Court. In short, what was good
for the goose was not good for the gander. Once again, the
system was neither fair nor balanced, nor could it possibly be
said that it was “careful,” when the courts invoked legal
technicalities to avoid considering the fairness or balance of
the procedure by which Mr. Yeatts' jury decided he should die.
THE UNDISPUTABLE ABSENCE OF FAIRNESS, BALANCE AND CARE THAT
PRECLUDED YEATTS’ JURY FROM CAREFULLY AND INTELLIGENTLY
DELIBERATING HIS SENTENCE AND CAUSED THE COURTS NOT TO
REVIEW HIS CLAIM THAT THIS BIASED PROCEDURE INFECTED HIS
SENTENCING PROCESS DEMANDS THAT THE GOVERNOR COMMUTE THE
SENTENCE OF RONALD DALE YEATTS TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.
The facts upon which this Petition is based are not subject
to dispute. It also can not be said -- at least not with a
+Had Yeatts pursued the claim in federal court on Eighth
Amendment grounds, he plainly would have lost under the “new
rule” doctrine.
straight face or any sense of integrity -- that the circumstances
described herein were fair, balanced or careful.
+ Any FAIRNESS in allowing the prosecution to introduce
the issue of parole and then preventing Yeatts from
accurately educating the jury as to parole eligibility
was limited to the Commonwealth; it was “BALANCED”
entirely in favor of a sentence of death.
+ The courts' consideration of Yeatts' complaint about
this procedure was only FAIR only to the Commonwealth,-
which was allowed to benefit from every legal
technicality available to it, while the very issue of
unfairness and imbalance in Yeatts' sentencing hearing
was left unaddressed; the procedure was “BALANCED”
entirely towards rescuing the Commonwealth from its own .
mistakes and avoiding care in the consideration of the
unfairness of the process by which Yeatts was sentenced
to death.
+ The jurors' CAREFUL DELIBERATION of the appropriate
sentence was thwarted by the law's refusal to provide
them with the information they desired, and to which,
in fairness, they should have been entitled.
Apparently, none of this was illegal, or unconstitutional,
but it was not fair nor balanced, and it certainly did not allow
for the jury's careful deliberation of the appropriate sentence.
Nor can its significance be discounted. Without the jury's
finding of future dangerousness, which the prosecutor linked
directly to Mr. Yeatts' past conduct while on probation and
parole, he would not even have been eligible for the death
penalty.
Of course, nothing was fair about the murder of Ruby Meeks
Dodson, either. Mr. Yeatts surely does not seek to avoid
punishment for his crime. The difference, of course, is that we,
the citizens of the Commonwealth, claim to be morally superior to
10
him and, unlike Mr. Yeatts, we insist that our system for
deciding who should die is fair.
If, indeed, the justification for rejecting the call of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Bar Association for a moratorium on
capital punishment is to be found in the fairness, balance,
deliberation and careful implementation of the death penalty
system in Virginia, Ronald Dale Yeatts' case deserves the
intervention of the Governor. Neither his sentencing hearing nor
his attempts to seek redress through the state and federal courts
were characterized by those qualities.
Consequently, Mr. Yeatts respectfully requests that the
Governor exercise his clemency powers to commute his sentence of
death to a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of
parole.
Respectfully submit
Gerald T. Zerkin
GERALD T. ZERKIN & ASSOCIATES
530 East Main Street
Suite 800
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 788-4412
Counsel for Ronald Dale Yeatts
11
Mec I H a B- am
Monat ees ce
urged
a. €xecul s
© vend tee a punishment
BY FRANK GREEN
TIMES-DISPATCI STAFF WRITER
The Charlottesville-Albemarle
Bar Association yesterday called for
a moratorium on capital punishment
in Virginia until more care can be
taken to make sure the innocent are,
not executed and that it be applied-in
a fair and impartial manner.
Bruce R. Williamson Jr., president
of the 375-member bar association,
said, “It was not necessary to do a
show of hands because the motion
very clearly carried on a voice vote.”
The action — apparently the first
of its kind in Virginia and just the
fourth like it in the country — mir-
rors a similar resolution passed by
the American Bar Association in
February 1997.
Yesterday’s resolution states it
does not take a position on the death
penalty, but nevertheless urges the
governor and the General Assembly
to stop carrying out executions until
steps are taken:
= “to ensure that death iS
~ procedures aré admitfifstere
and impartially”;
= “to minimize the risk that inno-
cent persons may be executed” ;
® “to strive to eliminate discrimi-
nation in capital sentencing on the
basis of the race of either the victim
or the defendant”; and
@ “to prevent (the) execution of
mentally retarded persons and per-
sons who were under the age of 18
at the time of their offenses.”
David Botkins, spokesman for At-
torney. General Mark L. Earley, said,
“All the concerns raised by the reso-
lution are all currently in place in
Virginia: the death penalty is admin-
istered fairly; there are safe-guards _
to keep innocent people from being
executed; and there is no discrimina-
tion in sentencing.”
He said Virginia law allows for the
death penalty only in the most hei-
nous of cases and juries carefully de-
berate before rendering a verdict.
” Botkins said, “With all due re-
spect to thé Bar Association, they
should be glad that Virginia has the
most fair, balanced and carefully im-
plemented death penalty System in
the country.”
Mark Miner, spokesman for Gov.
Jim Gilmore, said, “The governor is
following the law of Virginia and our
country which punishes those who
commit violent, heinous acts of -
“crime.”
Miner contends the system is fair
and has adequate safeguards.
But Henry Heller, director of Vir-
ginians for Alternatives to the Death .
penalty, said “It’s about time that a _
member bar association went in line.
with the American Bar Association
and is able to come out and say,
“Hey, there are questions here
about the use of the death penalty
and we.need to look tit.” ~
In February 1997, also citing un-
fairness, the American Bar Associa-
tion urged a nationwide moratorium
on the death penalty despite opposi-
tion from its president and the Clin-
ton administration,
The motion for yesterday’s reso-
jution was made by Charlottesville
lawyer Steven D. Rosenfield, who
has represented a number of death
row clients, Williamson said. Rosen-
field said the resolution mirrors the
one passed by the ABA.
23
24
1449
dangerousness, Your Honor, and we would ask that any
evidence of those prior crimes be excluded.
* “Dae COURT: Well, the Court's of the opinion
the law in Virginia is against you on that point, and the
Court will deny the motion to exclude. If you have any
ether grounds for exclusion as a witness is testifying
state them at that time. =
MR, PURROW: Yes sir, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That will cover any evidence of
prior crimes through this witness.
MR. FURROW: Your Honor, at the same time, I
think this is the appropriate time to do it. There isa
quéeefon or "two. that we would like to ask ‘this witness
_ that may be objectionable and we would like to proffer
that for the record at this time.
. THE COURT: That would be a good time to do
it. Go ahead.
MR. FURROW: Thank you sir.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION OF R. S. WILLIAMSON
By Mr. Purrow:
Q. Mr. Williams?
A. Williamson.
Q. Mr. Williamson, you're a Probation Officer?
A. Yes sir.
Q. You're familiar with the probation and parole
519
coer nih ee eres ae
24
a, 1450
Statutes and the way that you calculate somebody's time
once they, how much time they have to spend in jail ona
sentence?
A. Roughly, yes sir. .
Q. Alright, and when you say roughly, what do you
mean by that?
A. Well, there are four different classifications
for inmates. When someone goes into the system they're
classified in one of those classes and they can move up
and down. The good time they're awarded is based on the
classification they're in, so they may earn different
amounts of good time from quarter to quarter. Based on
“that they may earn at a different rate, based on whether
they're a first time felon, second, third, so forth.
Qa - Alright, do you know what classification Mr.
Yeatts would initially be placed in, as a result of his
prior crimes and his conviction of robbery and his
conviction of capital murder, if he received life
imprisonment?
A. He would be in the lowest classification as
far as gaining good time.
Q. in other words he would gain it slowest?
A. Right.
Q. Alright now, based on his prior records,
probation, the information that you have, and his
245)
conviction of robbery and his sentence of twenty years,
2 and a life sentence based on a conviction of capital
murder, can you tell me how long Mr. Yeatts would have to °
3
4 spend in the penitentiary? .
5|| A. He would have somewhere in the neighborhood of 3
6 thirty-five years, and then parole would be considered :
a based, to be eligible for parole, but again, that date can
8 be affected by awarded good time or loss of good time.
: gf} Q. And I understand that you can't....
10) Ae As we discussed earlier he, as far as the
" second time down mine, looking at his record, I feel like
12 || he'd be classified as a second term felon, which would ear
13 slower.
= 14 Q. Your best guess, how long would Mr. Yeatts
have to spend in the penitentiary?
15
ie] Ae “Probably thirty years, thirty~five.
17 MR. FURROW: That's our proffer, Your Honor.
48 ; MR. JONES: Judge, we do have one more
19 objection concerning the copies cf convictions, judgments.
20 Mr. Light's going to, of course, proffer the convictions
21 record, but attached to that, he isn't going to offer the
o2|}) letter I don't believe.
23 MR. LIGHT: No.
24 MR. JONES: But he is going to offer through
25 evidence, a Criminal Complaint Affidavit, which goes to
ee
24
14s5
record, is indeed admissible. The defendant has had
access to this information through the discovery process
for many, many months now, and he has had every ample
opportunity to explore this, to bring in any witnesses
that he so choose, and he was ultimately convicted of the
offense as charged, and as such I submit it's admissible, :
THE COURT: Are you talking about the warrant
that charges the offense or are you talking about the
Affidavit that's filed with the Magistrate?
MR. LIGHT: Criminal Complaint, Your Honor, it
is the Affidavit that's filed with the Magistrate.
THE COURT: ‘The Court rules it is not
admissible. Ready for the jury? “Ask the jurv to come in.
(The jury was returned to the Courtroom at
2:14 p.m.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont.)
By Mr. Light:
Q. Mr. Williamson, pursuant to your position as
Chief Probation and Parole Officer in the Office of
Probation and Parole, located in the City of Danville, do
you recall the date when Ronald Dale Yeatts first came to
your attention?
A. Yes sir.
Q. When was that?
A. March 3rd, 1980.
2420
MR. LIGHT: Your Honor, I have an attested
copy of a conviction Order out of the Circuit Court of the
City of Danville, dated March 3rd, 1980, signed by Judge
Ingram, and it's an attested copy, whereby the defendant
was convicted of statutory burglary and grand larceny.
THE COURT: Let it be admitted.
Q. Mr. Williamson, do you know, the sentence that
was given to the defendant as a result of this Court Order
that I just had admitted as Commonwealth's Exhibit Number
59?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And what was that?
A. Sentenced to four years, suspended for three
months, on the City Prison Farm, one year of probation to
follow, two years good behavior to follow that.
Q. When was the defendant released from
incarceration and began his probationary period?
A. Let me, for the grand larceny, imposition of
sentence was suspended for good behavior for five years.
His probation began on May the 9th, 1980.
Q. And when was, May 9th, 1980?
A. Yes sir. ;
Q. And directing your attention to June 21st,
1980, what was the defendant's status?
A. He broke into, he was on probation supervision
24
25
” whereby the defendant withdrew an appeal. “Attached to
1457}
at the time.
Q. And as of July 5th, 1980, what was the
defendant's status?
A. He was under probation supervision at that
time.
Q. And as of July 23rd, 1980, what was the
defendant's status? “
A. He was under probation supervision at that
time.
MR. LIGHT: Your Honor, I have an attested
copy of an Order entered by the Circuit Court of
Pittsylvania County, Virginia, dated December 12, 1980,
that, a conviction Order from the General District Court
of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, whereby the defendant,
Ronald Dale Yeatts, was convicted of petit larceny, and
sentenced to confinement of twelve months, with an offense
date of July 5th, 1980. We move for introduction of...
THE COURT: Let it be admitted.
MR. LIGHT: ...these three documents into
evidence as Commonwealth's Exhibit Number 60. Further, we-
have an attested copy of an Order of the Circuit Court of
Pittsylvania County, Virginia, dated November Sth, 1980,
whereby the defendant was found guilty of statutory
burglary and grand larceny on Indictment number one,
24
25
1458
statutory burglary and grand larceny on Indictment number
two, the offense dates being June 21st through the 23rd of
1980, and the other being July 23rd, 1980. We move for
introduction of these documents as Commonwealth's Exhibit
Number 61.
THE COURT: Let them be admitted.
Q. Now Mr. Williamson, the Virginia Carolina
Livestock Market, statutory burglary and grand larceny
that I just admitted into evidence, do you recall the
offense date for that offense?
A. Virginia Carolina Livestock Market was broken
into on June 2lst, 1980.
Q. * "and the petit larceny offense date?
A. Was this the incident involving the car
circus, was July 5th, 1980.
Q. And Bernard Mills?
A. was July 23rd, 1980.
Q. That's statutory burglary and grand larceny as
well?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And once again, the status of the defendant on
all three of those dates was?
A. He was under probation supervision.
Q. As a result of these convictions what, if
anything, occurred in the Danville Circuit Court on
19
21
24
A459
January 5th, 1981, as a result of your office's actions?
A. On January 5th, 1989, Mr. Yeatts appeared in
the Danville Circuit Court as a probation violator. On
that date the previous suspended, the statutory burglary
he received four year sentence, with two years of that
being resuspended on condition of good behavior for five
years upon his release, and the grand larceny conviction,
the prior, the imposition of sentence was suspended for
five years good behavior. :
MR. LIGHT: Judge, I have an attested copy of
that particular Order dated the 5th day of January of
1981, out of the Circuit Court of the City of Danville.
I'd like to move for introduction of that document ito
evidence as well.
TEE COURT: Let it be admitted.
Q. Now, based on the Court appearances that we
just detailed in the Circuit Court of Pittsylvania County,
on December 12, 1980, the two actions taken there, the
action taken by the Danville Circuit Court on January 5th,
1981, as of January 5th, 1981, what was the amount of
active time period pending against the defendant at that
time, on January 5th, 1981? How much time did he have to
pull?
A. Two years in penitentiary time, twenty-four -
months in jail time.
24
25
1460
Q. What was the defendant's status as of December
29th, 1980?
A. . He was an inmate.
MR. LIGHT: Your Honor, I have an attested
copy of the warrant and back of the warrant, whereby the
defendant was convicted on January 9th, 1981, of assault
and battery, having occurred on December 29th, 1980. Move
for introduction into evidence of that document.
THE COURT: Let it be admitted.
Q. When was: the defendant released from
incarceration as a result of these series of Orders?
A. Mr. Yeatts was released to mandatory
supervision on June 25th, 1982.
Q. What was his status upon release?
A. He was under parole supervision.
Q. What was the defendant's status es of
September 5, 1982?
A. Be was under parole supervision.
_ MR. LIGHT: - Your Honor, I have an attested
copy of an Order out of the Circuit Court ef Pittsylvania
County, Virginia, dated March llth, 1983, whereby the
defendant was eonvicted of trespassing. Move for
introduction into evidence of that document, finding the
‘defendant guilty of trespassing on the property-of Josie
Alman.
-1461
THE COURT: Let it be admitted.
2 a. Mr. Williamson, are you familiar with the
offense date of the trespassing into the home of Josie
4]| Alman?
5 A. September 5th, 1982.
6 MR. LIGHT: Your Honor, I further have an
7\| attested copy of an Order entered by the Circuit Court of
g|| Pittsylvania County, dated ‘March 9th, 1983, whereby the
9 defendant was convicted of statutory burglary and grand
10 larceny, and statutory burglary and petit larceny.
Attested copies of the Indictments that attach to that
particular document, one charging that the defendant did
12
1g] on or about September 21, 1982, did break and enter and —
. 14 |) Commit grand larceny at the Highland Park Baptist Church.
That's on September 21, 1982. We move for introduction
ie|) into evidence of that.
‘THE COURT: Let it be admitted.
MR. LIGHT: The other aspect of the
conviction, the other statutory burglary and petit
larceny, involved the Oak Grove Baptist Church. Do you
know the offense date of the Oak Grove Baptist Church
22 offense?
Yes sir, it was October 2nd, 1982.
23|] Ae
24 || Q- And the other offense date was what?
25 A. Highland Park Baptist Church was September
1462
21st, 1982.
2 a What was the defendant's status as of
September 2lst, 1982, and October 2nd, 1982?
4|| ae He was under parole supervision. .
5] Q- As a result of the previously mentioned
convictions, on March 9th, 1983, and the trespassing
conviction as of March llth, 1983, what i£ any, action did
you all as parole and probation officers take?
A. After his March lith conviction a Parole Board
Warrant was served against him charging him with parole
11 || violation.
_ tai) Q- And what action was taken on that?
ig || Ae " On May the 9th, 1983, his parole was revoked.
ya f] Qe And what resulted as a result of that?
15 || Ae He was returned back to the penitentiary
ie || system.
47|| Qe How long did the defendant remain in the
18 penitentiary system?
19) A- After going back this time?
20) @- Yes sir?
aij, A- "Til May the 22nd, 1987.
22} Qs What was the defendant's status as of May
23{| 13th, 1986?
He was an inmate in the Virginia Department of
24] As
25 Corrections.
oo.
23
24
rtve
MR. LIGHT: I have an attested copy of a
Circuit Court Order of Southampton copy, Southampton
County, dated May 13th, 1986, whereby the defendant was
convicted of a felony, to-wit: sodomy. Move for,
introduction into evidence of that particular document.
Q. Do you know the offense date of that
particular offense?
THE COURT: Let that Exhibit be admitted.
A. March 4th, 1985.
Q. What was the defendant's status as of that
date?
A. He was an inmate in-the Virginia Department of
Corrections. : oo : ;
Q. Now, on May 22nd, 1987, you indicated the
defendant's status changed. What did it change from and
to?
A. He was again granted parole back to the
community for supervision.
Q. And what was the defendant's status as of
March llth, 1988?
A. He was under parole supervision.
Q. What was the defendant's status as of April
13th, 1988? ;
A. He was under parole supervision.
MR. LIGHT: Your Honor, I have an attested
i
‘
24
25
1464
copy out of the Danville General District Court, alleging
an offense occurred March llth, 1988,. to-wit: trespassing,
convictéd April 13th, 1988. Move for introduction into
evidence of that. A
THE COURT: Let it be admitted.
Q. What, if any, action did the parole or
probation individuals take as a result of the offense on
April 13th, 1988?
A. He was continued on parole supervision.
Q. How long did the defendant continue on parole
supervision?
A. Until he was discharged on September 19th,
1989? , i . ;
Q. September 19th, 1989?
A. Yes sir.
e @eat = When was Mr., do your records indicate when
Mr. Yeatts was notified that he was released from parole
supervision?
A. Pebruary 26th, 1990.
Q. February 26th, 1990. Mr. Williamson,
beginning on March 3, 1980 and ending effective September
1989, was there any time period when the defendant was not
. incarcerated, on parole supervision, or on probation
supervision?
A. No sir.
24
25
1465
Q. During that time period from March 3, 1980 to
September 19th, 1989, were efforts made to assist the
defendant?
A. Yes sir. .
Q. That's part of what you all do?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Was a particular area that you and I
previously discussed, identified as an area or potential
assistance to the defendant?
A. He was referred for substance abuse
counseling and employment counseling.
Q. When was he initially referred to substance
abuse counseling?
A. June 25th, 1982.
Q. Doe your records show with what result?
A. On November 22nd, 1982, they terminated their
services to Mr. Yeatts.
Q.- For what reason?
A. Poor attendance and non-motivation to change.
Q. Was substance abuse counseling again offered
to Mr. Yeatts and encouraged by your office?
A. Yes sir, on May 22nd, 1987. ~
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Light, please don't
snap that. It appears on the transcript as a loud noise.
MR. LIGHT: . I apologize Your Honor.
1466
Q. Again sir, was substance abuse counseling made
available to the defendant at some time thereafter the
initial time period?
A August 4th, 1988, he was, I'm sorry, on May
22nd, 1987, he was referred to the Ridge Street Center for
substance abuse counseling.
Q. With what result?
A. On August 4th, 1988, he was terminated.
Q. For what reason?
A. Refusal to set up and keep appointments.
Q. Any other efforts made by your office to
assist the defendant with substance abuse problems?
A.
Other than just counseling within the office,
from the officer, no sir.
MR. LIGHT: That's all my questions. Please
answer any questions defense counsel may have.
CROSS EXAMINATION
By Mr. Furrow:
Q. Mr. Williamson, in the list of offenses there
is an assault?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And that occurred while Mr. Yeatts was in
jail?
A. Yes sir.
7 “and it eccurred with another inmate?
24
25
1585
not the way it happened. The way it happened was insteaq :
of that one clean stroke, it's got to be a frenzied
attack with blood, getting more blood and more blood, ang
heating the blood inside of the defendant. That's an
aggravated battery. Outrageously or wantonly vile,
horrible or inhuman in that it involved depravity of ming,
I'm not real sure what that means, but I know it when I
gee it. The future dangerousness, ladies and gentlemen,
the defendant's actions on September 23rd, 1989, beginning
at somewhere around 4:00 o'clock at the home of Ruby Meeks
Dodson, will tell you clearly and convincingly and over~
whelmingly that this man presents a future danger to
society. But now we know that it happened, it started
long before that, it started in, apparently it started
extremely early in life. Wa.kaow the defendant has been
to Court more than once. He had his chance more than
once. Matter of fact, virtually every one of those
offenses were committed while he was having his chance,
while he was out under the supervision of a probation or
parole officer. In fact, if you look at the time on some
of this stuff, it's a matter of days, and once you see the
pattern, a pattern that shows you clearly and convincingly
that began ten years go, and that was inevitable to turn
up to September 23rd, 1989. You have a man that since
March 3rd, 1980, March 3rd, 1980, for ten years almost, is
24
25
1586
either incarcerated, on parole uncer x2 see-zision of a
probation officer or on probation ues xp scvervision of
a probation officer, They can't sex 5-5 o- ce erquble. ©
They do what they can for him. E+ rei5.5 -. get help for
his substance abuse. He's in thiz, tzeecceraced, on
parole, on probation for ten yeare cim- -- zp tatil when,
four days, four days and Ruby Mees vte-m is Eilled.
How's he spend his time rehabilitec:«, simgelf, this is
how, with his treatment in the alscz,2 sneer that he
refuses to cooperate with. Even wrex os icck hin up we
can't keep him from committing felonies, committing
assaults and batteries. I really jazt want to make one
point. I'm going over the legal technicalities and I've
told you everything I've thought abour, the definitions
and all that stuff, and what fits on it, once again, I'm
going to try to focus your attention for the buffeting
: that I'm sure is going to follow here, and I tried to ao-
that when I“first began talking to You, try to think about
Ruby Meeks Dodson. You don't even have a photograph of
this woman here. You don’t even know what she looks like.
I know you will remember that this is human being, that is
mot a case. Ruby Meeks Dodson is a human being. It is ny
duty and the police's duty, and I submit your duty, to
look after Ruby Meeks Dodson's interest here. Thank you.
MR. FURROW: Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm SOrry-
24
25
1602
an instruction, not an instruction, excuse me, a question
from the jury, which reads, "How many years will the
defendant have to serve before he is eligible for parole
if he's given life plus the twenty years for armed
robbery?", and I'll ask if it's agreeable for ie Court to
answer that question, which, to the jury, which the Court
believes to be the law, and I would tell the Jury, ‘In
answer to your question on parole, the Court instructs the
jury that in deciding sentence you will not consider the
question of parole.".
MR. PURROW: Your Honor, the defense has no
objection to that instruction, but we want to make sure
that we reserve our’earlier instructions that we proffered
on parole and the proffer from the, we're not, the proffer
from the probation officer, Mr. Williamson. We're not
giving those up, but we have no objection to that
statement because we agree to it.
MR. LIGHT: I'm about ready to agree to give
their previous instructions, but I'll agree to this
instruction to the jury, Your Honor.
{THE COURT: Alright, ask the jury to come in.
(Jury brought in at this time.)
THE COURT: Remain standing if you will
Please. Ladies and gentlemen, the Court has received your
question, and in answer to your question on parole, the
548
o~
19
21
24
‘considered in mitigation that are listed in 19.2-whatever
1603
Court instructs the jury that in deciding sentence you
will not consider the question of parole, and that's the
answer I give you to the question. Please return now to
consider your verdict.
{THE JURY then again returned to the jury
room, for deliberations in the case, at 9:35 p.m.)
THE COURT: I told defense counsel before we
started closing arguments that I'd give them a chance to
make any objections to the Court's ruling on instructions.
I thought you'd already done so.
MR. JONES: I thought we did Judge, and of
course, but we got confused, and think we should make sure
we covered it, and maybe give some reasons why. ;
Instruction Number V, that's concerning the listing of the
certain mitigating circumstances, which are not all
exclusive but does in fact, list those things that.can be
that Section is that has the mitigation im-there. We
think that should have been given to instruct the jury.
TEE COURT: You've got two refused
instructions dealing with parole. You want me to give
—— . eComr
those now because of that question?
MR. JONES: Don't get me confused Judge. I
can only think of one thing at a time. Instruction W, we
just ask that, just object to not giving that, I can't
24
25
think of any reason right now. Bumber X, it's a
—_——_——__——-
delineating-mental_cetardation, that's one of the
pests saci
mitigating circumstances which would be offered by the
defendant as a basis for sentencing. We think that should |
be listed for the reasons previously given for the
Instruction Number V. The other dealing with the, W and
Z, concerning the parole, and I don't think you shoulda
give it right now. :
TEE COURT: Alright, your objections will be
noted for the record, for the refusal of the Court to give
those, what are they four instructions, four instructions.
Alright, we'll recess ‘til we hear from the jury.
(Court was in recess again at this time.)
THE COURT: Alright, ask the jury to come in
please. Let me see the verdict before you read it.
UPON. THE RETURN OF THE JURY, to the Courtroom,
at 10:12 p.m., the following verdict was rendered:
‘ THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
have you arrived at a unanimous verdict? (To which they
each responded in the affirmative.) Deliver your verdict
please to the Clerk, and listen to your verdict. Alright,
listen to your verdict read by the Clerk.
H. F. BAYMORE, JR., CLERK: Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, listen to your verdict..."We, the
jury, on the issue joined, having found the defendant
INSTRUCTION NO. x
THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT when you assess the
evidence presented by the Commonwealth in support of its
contention that there is a probability that the defendant will
commit furture criminal acts of violence that would constitute
a continuing threat to Society, you may consider the fact
that if you set defendant's Punishment at life imprisonment he
will not be eligible for parole consideration for thirty
years.
552
