Kidnapped by a Client, page 22
Q: But he had said to you before he didn’t have a knife?
A: Oh, he denied he had a knife, yeah.
Q: But you saw the knife in his right hand?
A: Oh, yes, sir. I saw it.
Q: So, what did you do?
A: Well, I said, “Hey, I saw the knife.” And he denied it. I saw him put it in his pocket, and I told him—I said, “Hey, I saw the knife.” He denied it. I got a little nervous, though. You know, I kept—by getting a little louder just to let him know that, you know, hey, I saw the doggone knife. So he finally admitted to having it, and he pulled it out of his pocket and he said, “What am I going to do with this? It’s a little filet knife,” which was, you know, a pretty good-size knife. David had got a metal bar out of the back of his truck because we really didn’t know what he was going to do with it.
Q: How did the whole situation come to an end?
A: After the knife thing, we told him to get back—get back over to the car, and he, you know, waited around it seemed like forever. But anyway, he waited, and then he finally says, “Hey, can I leave?” and we told him, “We’re not holding you. You’re free to leave, just keep away from the lady.” And so he gets in the car, and he gets a green backpack out and he starts walking north.
Q: Okay. Mr. Gibson, those are all the questions I have for you. Thank you.
A: Okay.
JUDGE: Cross-examination.
MR. WEST: No questions, Your Honor.
Of course West had no questions. Codell was untouchable.
Like I said, how do you thank someone for standing between you and death? A stranger with three small kids and his wife who had no idea if Morrison had a gun, yet they stopped. I am alive because they stopped.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF VICKIE GIBSON
[BY COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY, MR. GORDIE SHAW]
COMMONWEALTH: Your Honor, the Commonwealth calls Vickie Gibson.
Q: I’m just going to ask you some questions about April 7th, 2006, the reason why we’re all here.
A: Okay.
Q: Do you remember that day?
A: I do.
Q: How’s she [Sharon] behaving? Just describe how she was acting for us.
A: Basically hysterical, crying, couldn’t understand her at first, so we didn’t know really what was going on, and she was crying and screaming and she said that she was an attorney in Georgetown and that an ex-client had kidnapped her at knifepoint and told her he was going to kill her.
The only glitch is the knifepoint kidnapping. That would be easy to infer since I said he kidnapped me and he had a knife.
Q: Okay.
A: She was on the phone with 911 and handed it—the phone—to my husband and said, “I—I don’t know where I’m at; will you give directions?”
Q: Did she say anything else about how she got out to the country?
A: Yeah. She said that he had brought her out on a knife and told her which way to go so she said she didn’t know where she was at. That’s what she said.
Q: What’s the man doing?
A: He said, “Sharon, why are you tripping; why are you saying this?” And I guess trying to give the impression that they were out there together.
Q: Did she say anything back to him that you recall?
A: She said, “Don’t talk to me. You told me you were going to kill me. You told me you were going to rape me. Don’t talk to me.”
Q: Okay. Now, if you could, where is the woman during this time? Where is the man during this time?
A: The woman, at this point, is in front of David’s truck and behind our truck. The man had been at the car. And a couple of times, he did try to approach [Sharon]. And after my husband got off the phone with 911, he told him to stay back, that he didn’t know what was going on and the police could sort it out, but he wanted him to stay away from her. And he asked me to take her to the back of the truck to be away from him.
I’m glad she remembered that he continued to try to get to me even in front of witnesses. The jury needed to know he was determined to hurt me.
Q: Okay. Now, I believe you said the woman said he had a knife?
A: Yes. Yeah. She said he had a knife.
Q: Okay. Do you remember the man saying anything?
A: Yeah. He did ask—he said, “Do you know who I am?” And we—none of us knew him. We said no, and he said, “I’m Larry Morrison.”
Q: And—and what happened with the knife, Ms. Gibson?
A: He approached David Roe, and David Roe said, “I don’t want you to come close to me,” and he kept coming and David said, “I don’t want the knife.” And he handed it to David so David took it, put it on the hood of his truck, and that’s when the lady said, “Don’t touch that; that’s evidence.” So we left it there.
It seems like I’m not too panicked at this point, directing the witness not to touch the evidence. Not as West has argued.
Q: How did the whole situation come to an end?
A: We were behind the truck with the lady. I was. And my husband and David were still at the front of the truck, and I saw [Morrison] start walking down [the road], and he had a green duffle bag at that point.
Q: Tell us what happened when the deputy sheriff arrived.
A: The deputy arrived, and he got out and asked her if this was her boyfriend, and she said no.
MR. WEST: Objection.
Q: Okay. I’m not going to ask you anymore about that.
MR. WEST: Then strike.
Q: Okay. Ms. Gibson, those are all the questions I have for you. Thank you.
JUDGE: Cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF VICKY GIBSON
[BY ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE, MR. WEST]
Q: Ms. Gibson, you have a pretty good recollection of events that day, don’t you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I want to make sure I’m clear about something. You said that Ms. Muse had identified herself that she was an attorney at Georgetown?
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: That the man in the car was an ex-client?
A: Yes.
Q: That he had kidnapped her?
A: Yes.
Q: Made her drive out in the country?
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: And said he was going to kill her?
A: Yes.
Q: You recall her saying that to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Okay. That’s how you remember it?
A: That’s how I remember it. Yes.
Q: Okay. Thank you.
The point of cross-examination is to score some points for your client with the jury. You reel the witnesses in, you corner them, and then force them to say something that supports your narrative. I failed to see how the above line of questioning helped his client. It made me wonder what West thought he was accomplishing.
JUDGE: Okay. Ma’am, you’re excused.
CHAPTER 24
IS HE SINGLE?
After the prosecution rested, the judge dismissed the jury for lunch. West asked the judge to direct a verdict of not guilty and end the trial.
MR. WEST: Your Honor, at this point, the defendant would move for a directed verdict of not guilty on the grounds that a reasonable jury could not find guilt under the facts. That’s not a jury question; it’s for the Court. I think that the kidnapping exemption which is codified at K.R.S. 509.050 says that “a person may not be convicted of unlawful imprisonment” or kidnapping “when his interference with the victim’s liberty occurs immediately with and incidental to the commission of that [other] offense.”
West argued an exception in the kidnapping statute stating if the primary reason for the kidnapping was in furtherance of another crime, then the defendant should be charged only with the other crime. One of many problems with my case was that the prosecution hadn’t charged him with any other significant crime, like attempted rape or attempted murder. And they’d put on no evidence for the sexual abuse. Since I got away before Morrison could complete his other crimes, the judge, according to West’s argument, should direct the verdict as not guilty and end the trial. Essentially, Morrison would walk.
MR. WEST: Based on all of that, I believe that the kidnapping exemption applies and that charge should be dismissed and not taken back to the jury.
West’s duty was to present statutes to the court in the light most favorable to his client. I understood that. But if I had been in the courtroom and heard him make that argument, I would have wanted to make a run for him.
I was thankful Judge Johnson overruled West’s motion.
Since the prosecution’s case ended, the defense should have started their side of the case. Morrison was too guilty and slow-witted to put on the stand. They had no choice, no other witnesses, and therefore, no case to present. All they could do was attack the prosecution’s case. So we moved to closing arguments, but before they could begin, the law required Judge Johnson to find for the record that Morrison was declining to testify of his own free will.
MR. WEST: I have talked with Mr. Morrison. I do not believe he wishes to testify. It is my advice and Mr. Hart’s advice that he not testify and that is my advice, and I hope that he follows it.
JUDGE: Are you choosing not to testify in this case?
LARRY MORRISON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE: And is that based upon the advice of your counsel or is that also based upon your decision in this case not to testify?
LARRY MORRISON: The advice of my counsel.
JUDGE: Defense may proceed.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
[BY ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE, MR WEST]
Let me start off by saying that I’m glad that this is a trial on what the evidence shows and that it’s a trial on things that the Commonwealth has to prove and that this isn’t a referendum on the popularity of my client. Because I’m guessing you’re not liking him too much right now. We’ll just start off by what you heard in his statement. It was played here in court. You heard some of things that he said in there. And I know that you didn’t like some of those things because some of them, quite frankly, were preposterous.
I don’t know what it is when someone is accused of something, the first impulse is to tell some lies on—about some of it. Clinton did it when he was accused with the Monica Lewinsky thing. Nixon did when he was accused of Watergate. It seems to go across all walks of life. And when Larry was confronted with some of the accusations made against him, he made some things up. And the biggest one, I think, perhaps the most preposterous is that he did cocaine with Ms. Muse. Nobody here thinks that happened. We know it didn’t happen. Ms. Muse had the presence of mind when she was told about it to go have a test, to present the proof. We know Larry had cocaine. We know it was in his system. We know he was high on cocaine.
I’m very thankful today that telling a lie is not a crime that can be prosecuted. But the fact that Larry lied about some things does not remove from the Commonwealth the burden to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence that they have. They have 100 percent of that burden. And in the course of your deliberations, if you think well, there’s one more thing I’d like to know, there’s one more thing I wish had been said, one more question I wish had been asked, one more piece of evidence I wish had been introduced into evidence, that burden falls squarely and only on the Commonwealth.
Ms. Muse may well have been the last friendly soul that he felt was on his side before he ever went into prison.
Now, did he go there [Sharon’s office] with revenge on his mind? Was that a motive? It doesn’t really meet with the facts. Ms. Muse didn’t do anything that was worthy of any kind of revenge. I submit to you it is more likely that he was going to the last friendly soul that he ever knew. He’s out, he doesn’t know anybody, but he searches out the last person who showed him kindness before he went into prison.
I have to tell you that I’m real puzzled by some of the evidence that we have heard about what happened in that time.
And let me tell you, I know she was under stress. I know she was terrified, horrified, feeling annoyance. What I’m having trouble is here, five years later, is trying to piece together what has been said from that day forward to what we’ve heard now because it seems to be changing. I don’t think she’s telling the truth, but I’m not certain that her fears of what she thought might happen aren’t becoming mixed in with memories of what did happen because there’s a wide variance between what we have heard here and what has been said along the way.
It was almost physically impossible to keep my mouth shut and sit in my seat while West spoke, but I was acutely aware of my nearness to the jury. If any one of them glanced in my direction, I didn’t think they needed to see murderous arrows darting from my eyes. Story changing? I was annoyed? His friendly face routine sounded pathetic and weak, yet it still infuriated me. I hoped Keith made sure the jury knew years passed from when Morrison last saw me to when he went to prison. It would show the jury they couldn’t trust West. His arguments were pure fiction.
But I’m not pretending to be objective. It is probably a good thing I was not allowed to be in the courtroom until closing arguments.
He went on to attack me as an attorney, as an attorney I should have done things differently, been able to recall what happened better. Look how much better the witnesses could organize their recollection. Jeff Ballard had notes. I wasn’t shocked by this, and it was why I never pulled the court file or made a record where he could see I’d worked my case. He would have used that against me, so I worked it from behind the scenes.
CLOSING CONTINUES
And then I ask her—because remember on direct she said, “He hit me.” And I said, “When were you hit?” And she said, “Well, as I was trying to get out, he was hitting me.” She used her arm motion—go back to the 911 tape that was played into evidence where the unknown dispatcher said, “Okay. Did he hit you?” And the answer was, “No. He grabbed me.”
My spine straightened as rage pounded through my veins. This was deeply subversive and perverted the legitimacy of the effects of trauma on the brain. He used it like junk science to stir reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. West grossly misstated the 911 tape. When asked if I needed an ambulance I said, “I . . . don’t . . . know . . . “ When asked if he hit me I continued describing the fight in the car stating, “He grabbed my shirt and bra . . .” and went on to tell the operator about his pulling the knife. I have the recording and had it transcribed. In West’s defense, the transcript the prosecutor showed me did have the answer to the dispatcher’s ambulance question as “No.” I told Keith Eardley to listen to the tape again. In it, I was sobbing and speaking slowly between breaths and clearly said, “I don’t know.” I asked him to correct the transcript. He didn’t. Now it’s being used against me.
CLOSING CONTINUES
In the 911 tape she denied being hit, but now, he was constantly hitting her. So I think she’s traumatized, but I think a lot of the details of her memory over what happened have grown over time.
Now, I’m also confused about the ambulance. Ms. Muse talks about an ambulance ride. In her direct examination, she talked about being in an ambulance, but no police officer can remember an ambulance. And the only one that said anything about it, Arnett, thought she drove her own car to Georgetown. That’s something that has troubled me in this case because that’s a pretty vivid memory to have, being in an ambulance, especially if there’s no evidence that you were in one.
This guy is a nightmare. My medical records noted I arrived by ambulance, and as lead defense attorney, West has seen them. He had to agree for them to be admitted as evidence. I even suggested from the stand that Keith refer to my medical records. He never did.
I’m going to lose this case.
CLOSING CONTINUES
Another thing that struck me is the wad of money that Larry had in his pocket that he tried to put in Ms. Muse’s pocket that no one is saying was on Larry. It’s not in evidence. It wasn’t in the car. A wad of bills, rubber band, something in it. That’s just odd to me. I—I know—I don’t know about that. Certainly don’t know where he would have gotten it.
I’m sure it came from the same wad of money he used to buy his cocaine that day. I understood West had a job to do, but did he imagine himself to be a defender of justice, righting social wrongs, upholding the constitution like Atlas?
CLOSING CONTINUES
There’s a lot of details that sometimes are supported by the evidence and sometimes are not.
He merged fact and fiction until they were indistinguishable. He then returned to the defense handbook of burden on the Commonwealth, claiming they didn’t meet it, because he had nothing else. Then he finally sat down.
No sense in trying to hide it any longer. The jury can see I’m furious.
As Keith walks to the lecturn, I pray for him to be passionate, clear, persuasive.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
[BY ASSISTANT COMMONWEALTH’S ATTORNEY, MR. KEITH EARDLEY]
JUDGE: The Commonwealth ready to proceed?
MR. EARDLEY: Yes, sir.
JUDGE: Okay.
MR. EARDLEY: May it please the Court. I’d like to begin by thanking you on behalf of my office, the Commonwealth Attorney’s office for the 14th Circuit, for your jury service.
I’d like to start off by just hitting upon a couple of points that Mr. West mentioned. At the beginning of his argument, he talked a little bit about lying. The Presidents lie. Big deal. Larry Morrison lied. Big deal. But think about this, why do people lie? It’s really simple. They don’t want to get caught. Nixon, Bill Clinton, they didn’t want to get caught. They didn’t want anybody to find out what they had done.
Larry Morrison lied in a statement repeatedly, especially this business about the cocaine, doing cocaine with Sharon. “Sharon had the cocaine.” “Sharon gave me the cocaine.” “We snorted lines.” “No, we did a gram and a half.” Over and over and over in the course of that hour-long statement. Why did he do that? Because he wanted somebody to believe it. He wanted Officer Murrell to believe it. He wanted you to believe it. Fortunately the officer told Sharon, “He says you were doing cocaine.” What does Sharon say? “I want a blood test.” And we have the results of that blood test. Negative. Negative for cocaine. “A gram and a half of cocaine we did.” Over and over and over and over in his statement. Sharon Muse: negative.
