CHAPTER 32
It had been a long morning of testimony on the first day of trial and the jurors were tired and hungry. The defense had gone nowhere with their cross and recross of the pathologist and the courtroom was getting restless. Judge Cottingham decided it was a good time to break for lunch.
The Horry County Courthouse is nestled among towering oak trees in downtown Conway. Mostly lawyers and accounting offices face the courthouse on the front and sides of the streets. On the corner, not even a block away, sits Wayne’s Restaurant, where most of the court participants enjoyed Southern fried cooking at its finest. Their menu featured a hearty selection of vegetables, salads, desserts, breads and an array of meats, including fried chicken, pork chops, quail, barbecue and shrimp. The meal and a beverage could be purchased at a reasonable price, but the hospitality and trial commentary from Wayne’s owner, Linda Hucks, was always free.
After lunch, all the spectators and participants in the trial took their seats and waited on Judge Cottingham. The first witness called to the stand by the prosecution was Winston-Salem investigative officer Mike Rowe, who had put together the photographic lineup package for Myrtle Beach police on June 16, 1998. The jury was shown the five photographs chosen from a computer database that were similar in physical characteristics to Frazier. The prosecution introduced this to them for the purpose of familiarity. Their plan was to recall this same document on another day, with witnesses who had identified John Frazier as the man dressed in black on the beach the night Brent was killed.
The prosecution continued its presentation of evidence with Detective Terry Altman and crime scene specialists from both Myrtle Beach police and SLED. In their slow and deliberate style of questioning, Hembree and Humphries took turns asking each officer their connection with the personal effects and clothing of Brent Poole after his death and what involvement did they have in collection of those items and turning them into property and evidence. Again, the judge paused, as before, to excuse Brent Poole’s family before the evidence was produced.
The defense had no questions to ask of these witnesses but one. Lieutenant Ira Jeffcoat, a fifteen-year-veteran forensic evidence technician with SLED, testified that among the evidence submitted to him to be tested for body fluids was Brent’s underwear. They tested for blood on his blue jeans and striped shirt, white towel, right shoe—all of those cuttings contained human blood belonging to Brent. One particular item swab tested for human semen came from Brent’s pair of white underwear. After a chemical test, it was determined there was, in fact, human semen on the underwear of William Brent Poole. It had given the appearance that Renee had had sex with Brent in an effort to stall so that John could get in place to deliver the fatal blast.
The trial had pretty much lost its emotional edge with the late-afternoon witnesses, but it quickly returned to a higher intensity when sex was mentioned. Dressed fashionably in a bright red suit, Orrie West questioned Jeffcoat in relation to his findings. “Did they ask you to determine whose semen that was in his underwear?” she asked.
“No, I did not. I was never submitted a sample of blood from the victim to compare to the unknown stain. I would have to have that sample to make that comparison.”
“So you don’t know that it was Mr. Poole’s?”
“All I know is there was semen on his underwear,” Jeffcoat stated.
“Now, you said how long have you been doing this for SLED?”
“Fifteen years.”
Hembree asked for permission to redirect and with one question he asked what everyone already knew was the answer: “How would you expect it to get there?”
“Through ejaculation after sex,” Jeffcoat replied.
The unspoken affirmation on the jury’s face was significant. Had Renee Poole really made love to her husband on the night he was shot, thus luring him right into a death trap?
After a brief sidebar and a few remarks from the judge to the jury, the court called for a break.
During the break, Diggs rallied his troops. He anticipated the prosecution was about to make one of its biggest strategic moves. They were preparing to bring on the big boys, Detectives John King and Terry Altman. In addition, they would introduce and play the tapes of Renee’s interviews. This, he believed, was where the game would be won or lost.
Diggs wasn’t worried. He had promised the jury in his opening remarks they would hear Renee’s testimony in her own words. After the tapes were played, his plan was to launch a ruthless attack against the detectives and accuse them of coercing Renee into a confession. This would later on lead the jury straight to his strongest defensive claim when he introduced his expert witness and his testimony relating to false confessions. Renee was in shock after the murder of her husband and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She was in a vulnerable position while she was being interviewed by the police and was coerced into giving a confession. This tactic would put the defense back where they wanted to be in this trial and give them a strong defensive foothold.
But, first things first. He had to contend with the prosecution’s witnesses.
Humphries’ questioning of the mild-mannered and gentle—dressed to the nines—Detective King led into Renee’s confession that she and John had conspired to murder. For the jury, it was hard to imagine this soft-spoken detective forcing Renee into a confession. King implied it was as plain as the nose on his face, she was not under any undue duress and was more than willing to talk with the police. And at no time had she been threatened or had she been promised any hope of reward or hope of leniency for her statements. She had not only agreed to provide a statement voluntarily, but had allowed them to tape it as well. King had no concerns whatsoever regarding whether or not Renee understood what she was saying to him.
Humphries took his time and through King’s examination methodically presented to the jury the circumstances of and conversations from Renee’s interviews. During this process, he introduced and explained in a lengthy discourse with King the Miranda warnings and Waiver of Rights forms that Renee had signed, indicating she had been advised of her rights. He then addressed her interview in Davie County, where she was represented by counsel.
“Specifically, in regard to that particular interview,” Humphries asked, “was the defendant asked directly by law enforcement whether or not John Boyd Frazier had shot William Brent Poole?”
“Yes, she was,” King answered softly.
“And during the interview, the first part of that interview, what was her answer to law enforcement?”
“She said no,” King responded. “She said [that] it could have been. Then she said it could have been anyone. But she didn’t give a direct answer and say, ‘Yes, it was.’ ” He then revealed that during the interview process her attorney had requested a fifteen-minute recess.
Humphries approached the witness. “What new, specific information did you receive, if any, in this second portion of the interview which occurred on the twelfth of June at Davie County?”
“She told us it was John Frazier that shot and killed her husband.”
“And did she indicate to you how she was sure of that information?”
“She said she knew it was John from his voice, from his build, from his mannerism and just from being around him.”
Humphries then asked King to explain for the jury Renee’s arrest the night of her husband’s wake at the funeral home. Why it was necessary to arrest her that evening?
King explained the fugitive task force had located and arrested John Frazier and they had some concern Renee might flee. He admitted his concern was not just specific to Renee, but as it would have been under any other circumstance when a codefendant was arrested prior to another codefendant.
The prosecution held nothing back. “What if anything,” Humphries began, throwing everything out but the kitchen sink, “was said by the mother of the defendant to “Butch,” a member of the fugitive task force, regarding interview techniques, if you will, regarding her daughter.”
King didn’t bat an eye. He looked straight at the jury and responded, “It was relayed that you have to really get on Renee real hard to get the truth out of her.”
Diggs rose to his feet and offered a boisterous objection on the basis of hearsay. The prosecution had insinuated that even the mother couldn’t trust her daughter to tell the truth. Cottingham sustained.
“Your Honor, I understand,” Humphries countered. “Just as a basis, I submit to the court this is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to support the technique used by law enforcement in the interview of the defendant, which will be relevant clearly on cross-examination.”
“All right,” the judge accepted the explanation. “I charge the jury that the assertion by the mother at that time may not be used as any evidence other than it is for the truth asserted. It is merely solicited for the purposes of his further technique in discussing with the defendant. Is that correct?”
“That is correct, Your Honor,” Humphries assured the judge.
Cottingham explained his decision to the jurors again and cleared it with Diggs before he allowed King to continue.
“Once I was in possession of that information,” King stated, “as a result of that information, I wrote that down on a piece of paper and slipped it under the door during her interview.”
“Now, after giving this note that you’ve spoken of to Detective Altman,” Humphries went on to say, “what, if anything, did you note regarding his interview technique with the defendant?”
“Once I gave him that information, his technique did change,” King answered.
“Was it more assertive?”
“Yes, it was.”
“Did there come another point during the interview where you heard something that you wished to then convey back to the interviewers?”
“Yes, I did.”
Several of the jurors leaned forward or sat up in their chairs. Humphries smiled, then instructed King to tell the jury about that.
“During the course of the interview, I heard Renee tell Detective Altman and Lieutenant Frontz that she didn’t think John was gonna be there because the time was too soon. I then wrote that information down on another piece of paper and slipped it under the door to bring that to their attention.”
Humphries took a step toward Sergeant King. “And after giving them that information, did those detectives then go back to that point—that they thought John would be there too soon?”
“Yes, they did.”
Humphries then moved to publish to the court typed transcripts and the first recorded interview between Detective King and Renee on the night of Brent’s murder at 3:37 in the morning. He wanted the jury to hear how much her story changed from this interview to her later ones, and that the most incriminating evidence against her would come not in this interview but in a subsequent one when she was in the presence of her attorney.
Before the jury heard the tape, Judge Cottingham wanted to make certain Renee got a fair shake. For fifteen minutes, he instructed the jury on the Miranda warnings and the law as it related to Renee’s alleged voluntary statements. It was an impressive history lesson concerning constitutional rights. As the judge went through it all, Renee stared at King from across the courtroom.
The jury listened to the taped interview and followed along with their typed transcript copies for exactly one hour and two minutes. They heard a very calm and collected Renee Poole being interviewed by the polite Detective King. At 6:27 P.M., Judge Cottingham asked the defense if they desired to cross-examine the witness or break for the evening.
Diggs wisely chose to break and begin with King in the morning.
The prosecution believed they had delivered a tremendous blow to the defense’s case that Renee had been coerced into making a confession, in allowing them to listen to the taped interview. They had wanted them to see that even the not-so-bright persons could figure out a fallback position after they had said something they regretted and claim they had been pressured—when it had never happened. The prosecution was convinced Renee was sophisticated enough to do just that when she saw her statement was going to be used against her.
The defense had their work cut out for them. The jury would want to know why it was that Renee hadn’t been able to keep quiet and kept talking to the police until she finally confessed? Had she helped to plan it, but thought she could get away with it simply because she hadn’t pulled the trigger?
Sergeant King was a very believable witness. If the defense was going to discredit him, then Diggs was going to have to show up in court tomorrow with his boxing gloves on.