THE first witness of the trial was Laura Ackerson’s friend and business partner, Chevon Mathes. She told the jury how they’d met, and the essence of the business they’d operated together. A broad smile went across her face when she was asked about Laura’s children. “Two lovely little boys . . . Grant was just the leader. He’s the oldest and little Gentle just followed him around. They were high energy, very sweet and well-mannered children.”
Prosecutor Boz Zellinger had Chevon tell the jurors about the custody exchanges and the nature of the dispute that arose over midweek visits the month before Laura’s death. Then he questioned her about Laura’s skills as a parent. Chevon said, “She was a very loving mother. She took a lot of time out for the kids. She would stop whatever she was doing to make sure they were okay.”
After a discussion of Laura’s habit of recording all interactions with Grant Hayes and keeping copious notes about those encounters, Zellinger asked, “Did Laura ever express any concerns to you that she had for her safety?”
“Yes,” Chevon said. “She told me that she feared for her life.”
“Was this one occasion or did she express that multiple times?”
“We spoke about it numerous times” in the months before her murder, Chevon said.
“What did Laura say?”
“She told me she didn’t know what Grant was capable of and if anything happened to her, Grant did it. Basically, she just told me she feared for her life.”
When the prosecution shifted gears, Chevon responded, “Her main priority was to get her children back before anything else—even our business, even when she was working at the store, she would drop whatever she had to do for her kids. There was a time when she had meetings and I had to take the meetings when Grant called, and that was when Amanda was about to give birth and he wanted her to have the kids for a little period of time and we’d have things set up but I just had to take care of them because she dropped it to be with her kids.”
Chevon described the many contacts she had with Laura on Tuesday and Wednesday, July 12 and 13, the success of company sales Laura made and the abrupt end of communication. She testified, “I was waiting for her to give me a call back that evening because we were going to get together and go over everything.” She added that when she called Laura on Thursday, the call went straight to voice mail.
“Was that unusual?” Zellinger asked.
“Very,” said Chevon. “She always had that phone on her or had that phone near her, in case those kids ever needed to call her. . . . I was concerned. She never had that phone off. She always had that phone on. It was just very odd that it was going straight to her voice mail.” Chevon described how she went over to Laura’s apartment complex and saw that her car wasn’t there. “Friday, I sent her an e-mail and said, ‘I’m concerned. I’m worried. Give me a call.’” She told the jurors about going to the police station in Kinston and filing a missing persons report, then talking to the Wilson and Raleigh police departments as well.
The state used the witness to introduce the recovered notebooks from Laura’s apartment. Chevon looked through them and testified that she recognized Laura’s handwriting. Despite the serious nature of her appearance in the courtroom, Chevon could not help smiling and laughing as she read over Laura’s humorous comments about the potential clients who’d turned down their company’s proposal.
Zellinger asked, “Did Laura ever talk to you about giving up custody of her children?”
“No.”
“Did Laura ever express to you whether or not she wanted to have custody of her children?”
“Yes,” said Chevon. “She wanted her kids back.”
On cross-examination, Jeff Cutler pushed Chevon to explain why Grant had custody, but she didn’t know. Then he asked, “Did she tell you that she consented to him having custody?”
“No.”
“Did she tell you that she allowed Grant to take little Grant to New York back in February of 2010?”
“Yes.”
“Did she tell you she signed a consent order in the summer of 2010, consenting to the arrangement that they had for the next year?”
“No,” replied Chevon. “I didn’t know about any consent. I did know that she allowed Grant to go with his father to New York. . . . She did not tell me there was anything through the courts but that he just took him to New York with them.” She further explained that her understanding was that the arrangement for the boys to be with Grant during the week and with Laura on the weekends was court-arranged and wasn’t by Laura’s choice.
“Did she ever offer to introduce you to Grant?” Cutler asked.
“No, she told me she didn’t want him to know about me.”
“Do you think it’s possible that she just didn’t want you to get to know Grant?”
“No.”
At the probing of the defense, Chevon admitted that she had no idea of the kind of parent Grant was or how much he loved his kids. On re-direct, Zellinger asked her what Laura told her about what happened in court.
Chevon said, “She told me that he painted a picture that she was a prostitute and a drug user and that’s how he got custody of their children.”
“Why would Laura never go to Grant’s apartment?”
“She was scared,” Chevon said.
—
ANOTHER one of Laura’s friends, Heidi Schumacher, assumed the witness box wearing a tight updo. Her face was pale and she had a haunted look in her eyes that intensified the longer she answered questions. She told the jury that Laura was her best friend and that they’d first met in late 2004 or early 2005.
After Heidi discussed Laura’s belief that she’d been married to Grant and outlined the legal wrangling over the custody of the children, Zellinger asked, “Were you involved in any hearings involving that ex parte?”
“I was involved in the entire custody battle. . . . I was a character witness to Laura.” Heidi told the jury that when the court suggested that Grant have the children during the week and Laura have them on the weekends, Laura went along with it because she had not seen her children in months at that point and believed that “any time was better than none.” Heidi explained that she was the one who’d told Laura “to go get a tape recorder immediately. I also told her to keep a log of any contact she had with Grant and with the boys.” Heidi noted that Laura even kept a log of their food, because of accusations and recriminations from Grant and Amanda that what she fed the boys made them sick.
“She kept a log of when she fed them, what times, when she had diaper changes. She kept a log of every activity she did with the children and every contact she made with Grant. . . . Laura loved her children more than anything and it showed in every action that she took.”
Heidi wrapped up her direct testimony by telling the jurors about Laura’s prescient statement that if anything ever happened to her, Heidi should know that “Grant did it.”
On cross-examination, Heidi insisted, “She told me she would never go to his apartment.”
When Cutler pressed her on that belief, pointing to Laura’s obvious visit on July 13, Heidi said, “The only reason I can think of was because he was going to give her custody of the kids. That’s the only reason I can think of that she would have gone.”
With those words, the court adjourned.
—
THE following morning, Friday, August 30, 2013, when court resumed but before the jury was brought in, the judge said, “I’ve been advised at the bench that the witness on the stand, Heidi Schumacher, is a witness who has information in reference to what we refer to as 404(b) evidence, dealing with other acts that might constitute crimes for which the defendant is not charged. In previous motions, I have deferred ruling on the admissibility of any such evidence, and since the witness is here and the jury is out, it would seem appropriate to listen to what that evidence would entail so I can be in a position to make some ruling on it in the event that the state decides, at this time or at some time later in the trial, to offer the evidence.”
Heidi resumed her seat in the witness box, wearing the same black cardigan she’d worn the day before but replacing the previous day’s drab gray dress with a bright blue one. First, she related to the judge the incident of her phone conversation with Laura in 2008, when Grant was ranting in the background and she’d arrived to find Laura injured. Heidi then moved on to the time Grant threatened both her and Laura in a parking lot.
Defense Attorney Cutler got Heidi to admit that Laura never “specifically said that Grant hit her,” although Laura had said that Grant caused her injuries.
“When Laura told you Grant went to the US Virgin Islands, did she tell you he went with another woman?”
“No.”
Heidi also said she’d seen the pictures of Grant and Amanda’s wedding in Las Vegas and that little Grant had been in the photos. She testified that it was her understanding that Laura did not know they were married until she received the photos from Grant.
Cutler tried to discredit that statement by claiming that Laura had sent an e-mail to Grant talking about his marriage to Amanda before it happened. He claimed in one of them Laura wrote, “I’m glad you found your perfect match, Grant.” The defense however, did not produce that e-mail or any other proof to corroborate that statement.
Cutler did, however, have Heidi read the January 2011 e-mail chain between Grant and Laura (in which Grant made a number of negative comments about Laura) into the record. In the e-mails, Laura didn’t argue about the validity of Grant’s remarks, but did say that she was laughing at what he said.
The judge reached a decision, saying that anything regarding arguments and physical confrontations was relevant. “I’m inclined to hear testimony from Heidi Schumacher on anything she actually saw, but not what happened out of her sight, based on what the victim said to her three years prior to her death.” In short, Heidi’s testimony about the threats and the physical injury were admissible, as long as Heidi didn’t mention Laura’s comments.
The jury took their seats in the courtroom and the direct examination continued with a recitation of the events that occurred on the day Heidi saw Laura with a black eye and a bloody nose. She then related Laura’s surprise when she realized that she was not legally married to Grant.
When the prosecutor asked Heidi about introducing Laura to Oksana Samarsky, she said that she had done so because “Laura was always good at meeting people and marketing and Oksana was a fantastic artist and Laura was also an artist. I introduced them because I thought they would hit it off and I thought they could help each other.”
The state then questioned her about Laura going to Grant’s apartment. Heidi insisted that Laura would not go. “She would not be alone with him.” Heidi said Laura was afraid of how a situation could be twisted when there were no other witnesses.
She continued on with testimony about Laura’s physical fears, telling the jury about the threat Grant had made to both of them in the parking lot, and how it had led to her getting a concealed-carry permit, and—since Laura was uncomfortable with guns—why Heidi gave her a knife for her protection.
On re-cross, the defense tried to shred her testimony, but Heidi stood her ground. The defense accused her of never having previously said anything about Grant’s threat to kill both of them, but she vehemently denied that allegation.
Finally, when asked about what she told the police when Laura went missing, Heidi testified that when she spoke to them, she’d shared her belief that Grant had either had Laura murdered or had murdered her himself.
—
THE next witness on the stand that day was Kinston Detective James Gwartney. Gwartney, a man in the proximate vicinity of forty with brush-cut light brown hair, sharp cheekbones, deep-set eyes and a downturned mouth, wore a light gray suit, a blue oxford button-down shirt and a yellow tie. After Chevon Mathes had filed the report about Laura with the Kinston police, his supervisor had given him the missing persons file to investigate.
Through direct and cross-examination, Gwartney detailed the steps he took during the two brief days the case had been in his hands before he turned it over to the Raleigh homicide unit.
SBI Special Agent Lolita Chapman, a black woman with short, neat hair and a prominent chin, followed him on the stand. An investigator with the State Bureau of Investigation, assigned to Greene and Lenoir Counties, Chapman became involved in the case on July 19, when she received a request from the Kinston police for assistance with interviews because of a manpower shortage. On cross-examination, Cutler directed her to read passages from Laura’s journal that reflected poorly on Amanda.
Sergeant Dana Suggs of the Raleigh Police Department testified about the discovery of Laura Ackerson’s Ford Focus in the parking lot of her former residence at Camden Crest apartments.
Oksana Samarsky next took the stand. She had long, light brown hair, parted in the middle, with long bangs; deep, dark eyes; and smooth skin. Oksana described how Heidi Schumacher had introduced her to Laura in February 2011. She remembered that first encounter well. Laura’s two little boys had crawled all over their mother, who displayed a bubbly personality. “We became very quick friends,” Oksana said. “Laura believed in me and thought I could make money on my art. She was going to help me with marketing and was going to try to use her connections to get me into a gallery.”
Oksana chatted with Laura on July 12, and they were going to try to get together on the evening of the thirteenth. Laura left Oksana a voice mail message that night but they didn’t connect. “I was in study group and I saw my phone ring. I wish I’d picked it up. If I’d known what would happen . . .” Oksana said, choking up with emotion as she fought tears and her voice cracked. “I would not let it ring and then just kind of ignored it because she left me a voice mail. And I listened to the voice mail and it said she couldn’t make it, she’s doing something else. And that’s fine, it happened before, it didn’t work out. But two weeks later, it was very important that I should have picked up the phone.” She paused to capture her composure, pulling out a tissue and blotting her eyes. “I got a call two weeks later from a detective who asked to meet me to get that message off my phone. I ended up meeting him and he had a tape recorder and I played the message and he recorded it,” she said through sniffles.
“Have you listened to that message?”
“Yes, several times.”
The state entered the taped message and a transcript of it into the evidence and then played the tape of Laura. By the time it ended, Oksana’s sobs ripped through the courtroom.
The prosecution continued. “After that message, did you ever talk to Laura again?”
“No,” Oksana choked out through her tears.
The judge gave her a moment to compose herself. She blew her nose and looked up at defense attorney Will Durham.
Durham asked her about a Facebook chat she’d had with Laura on July 12. “You and Laura talked about how the custody case was going and Laura said, ‘It’s going. I joined a group online of ladies in a similar situation—people who have had to deal with assholes. LOL. And my situation is so, so, so, so good comparatively.’ She said that to you on that Internet chat, didn’t she?”
“Yes,” Oksana admitted.
On re-direct, the state had Oksana read a chat string from earlier that summer, when Laura expressed confidence that she would soon be regaining custody of the boys and congratulated her friend for selling some of her art online. The defense then asked if Laura ever showed her any cell phone cases with art on them.
“Yes. Ones Grant did. She spoke very highly of his work.” With that, Oksana, with a tear-stained face, was finally released from the stand.
—
ANOTHER young woman stepped into the box in her place. Sha Elmer, now Sha Guddat since her marriage the year before, was twenty-four years old and had short, thick, light brown hair and a pretty, sweet-looking face with a warm smile that lit up her eyes. She told the jury that her mother, Amanda Hayes, was married to Grant Hayes.
On direct examination, she sketched out her family history for the jury. Then, she told them about picking up the boys and taking them to Monkey Joe’s on the morning of July 14, 2011. She admitted her frustration about having to drive across town and back to loan her mother the vacuum cleaner that belonged to her boyfriend. She talked about the cancelation of the weekend’s moving plans and her surprise at her mother’s sudden trip to Texas.
On cross-examination, Sha went over her mother’s comments about the trip to visit her sister halfway across the country. She said that, although she did not know it until after the fact, her mother wanted to move an antique piece from the 1800s that she inherited from her second husband to Fort Bend County, Texas, for safekeeping.
When asked about her relationship with Grant, Sha said that it was pretty good. She told the jury that on April 30, 2011, she’d posted a message on his Facebook page that read, “Happy Birthday, Daddy.” She added, “That’s what I called him because that’s what the boys called him.”
Questioned about what she told police about Grant, Sha said, “Grant thought he was a good dad and not in danger of losing custody. He just wanted it to be all over—we all did.” She said she’d assured detectives that she’d never seen Grant lose his temper or raise his voice and that he’d never been violent in front of her.
On re-direct, the state asked, “During the summer of 2011, how would you describe the financial situation of your mother and Grant Hayes?”
“Swirling down the drain.”
“Would you say they were losing money?”
“Anything my mother had at that point had been sold.” She continued in that vein, describing the many items her mother had lost: a Rolex, an engagement ring, a wedding ring, a diamond tennis bracelet and other jewelry from Nicky Smith, as well as an unset green-yellow diamond.
The state handed her exhibit 45, a manual for a handheld reciprocating saw. Sha testified that she found it in a stack of papers when she was packing up the family’s belongings after the arrest of her mother and Grant.
When the defense asked questions again, Sha told the jury that sometimes when Laura called, Grant would put the phone on speaker or just set it down and let her rant. Grant, she said, wouldn’t yell back in front of the baby.