Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:42):
We are back on the record. State, you indicated in chambers that your witness from Charlotte is present. Is that correct?
Jason William Smith (06:52):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:53):
Okay. Is there anything that we need to discuss before we begin this morning, Mr. Smith?
Jason William Smith (06:57):
Judge, just on our witness coming in from Boston, her plane lands, I think about 11, 11:30. We anticipate putting her on this afternoon.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:07):
All right. Thank you. Mr. Britt, is there anything that we need to discuss?
Luther Johnson Britt (07:12):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:12):
All right. Let's bring our jury in.
Bailiff (07:14):
Bringing in the jury. You're welcome.
(07:21)
The jury is seated, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (07:59):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. All right. State, you may call your next witness.
Shirley Smircic (08:20):
State calls Lyndsey Sanney to the stand.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (08:23):
All right, ma'am, if you can make your way around here to the witness stand, please. Before you have a seat, ma'am, if you can place your left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand.
Court Clerk (08:46):
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Lyndsey Sanney (08:51):
I do.
Court Clerk (08:51):
Thank you. You may be seated.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (08:58):
All right, ma'am, as you give your testimony here today, there are some important things to remember. First, speak loudly and clearly into the microphone so that everybody here can hear you. Second, make sure all of your answers are out loud. You can't have any head shakes or nods or mm-hmms. Everything has to be yes or no. And third, please wait for the attorney to be done asking their question before you give a response. Can you do that?
Lyndsey Sanney (09:19):
Yes.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (09:20):
All right. Thank you. State you may proceed.
Shirley Smircic (09:22):
Thank you, Judge. Can you state your name and spell it for Madam Court Reporter?
Lyndsey Sanney (09:26):
My name is Lyndsey Sanney, L-Y-N- D-S-E-Y S-A-N-N-E-Y.
Shirley Smircic (09:34):
And Ms. Sanney, where do you work?
Lyndsey Sanney (09:36):
I'm employed by Bode Technology.
Shirley Smircic (09:40):
What is your position at Bode Technology?
Lyndsey Sanney (09:43):
I am a senior DNA analyst.
Shirley Smircic (09:46):
And how long have you been employed with Bode?
Lyndsey Sanney (09:49):
Approximately 10 years.
Shirley Smircic (09:54):
And what kind of lab is Bode? Is it a private lab? What kind of...
Lyndsey Sanney (09:58):
Bode is a private forensic DNA testing laboratory.
Shirley Smircic (10:03):
What are your duties and responsibilities with Bode?
Lyndsey Sanney (10:06):
I handle developing testing plans, client communications, overseeing cases as they move through the laboratory, analyzing and interpreting DNA profiles, writing reports regarding my conclusions, and testifying to those results as needed.
Shirley Smircic (10:26):
What is your educational background?
Lyndsey Sanney (10:28):
I have a bachelor's of science in forensic chemistry from Marshall University and a master's of science in biomedical forensic science from the Boston University School of Medicine.
Shirley Smircic (10:42):
Can you tell us about your forensic experience?
Lyndsey Sanney (10:46):
Upon completion of my master's degree, I started my career with Bode. I initially started as a technologist, so performing all of the laboratory processing before being promoted to analyst and ultimately my role of senior DNA analyst.
Shirley Smircic (11:05):
Are you certified in anything?
Lyndsey Sanney (11:07):
I hold a certification in forensic DNA analysis from the state of Texas.
Shirley Smircic (11:13):
And have you ever testified in court as an expert witness?
Lyndsey Sanney (11:16):
Yes, I have.
Shirley Smircic (11:17):
Approximately how many times?
Lyndsey Sanney (11:18):
Approximately 40.
Shirley Smircic (11:21):
May I approach?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (11:21):
You may.
Shirley Smircic (11:21):
Ms. Sanney, I'm showing you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 115. Do you recognize that document?
Lyndsey Sanney (11:35):
I do.
Shirley Smircic (11:36):
What is it?
Lyndsey Sanney (11:37):
This is a copy of my CV.
Shirley Smircic (11:39):
Is that all your education, work experience, qualifications listed in there?
Lyndsey Sanney (11:45):
Yes. There are a few testimonies missing, but otherwise, yes.
Shirley Smircic (11:49):
Appear to be fair and accurate, no modifications or changes?
Lyndsey Sanney (11:52):
Correct.
Shirley Smircic (11:53):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 115 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (11:56):
Any objection?
Luther Johnson Britt (11:57):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (11:58):
State's Exhibit 115 will be admitted into evidence.
Shirley Smircic (12:02):
And Judge, at this time, I would tender Ms. Sanney as an expert in a forensic DNA analysis.
Luther Johnson Britt (12:08):
No objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (12:13):
The witness will be qualified as an expert in the field of forensic DNA analysis.
Shirley Smircic (12:19):
Ms. Sanney, you mentioned earlier that Bode is a private forensic lab?
Lyndsey Sanney (12:23):
Correct.
Shirley Smircic (12:24):
Does Bode sometimes assist law enforcement agencies in investigations?
Lyndsey Sanney (12:29):
Yes. We contract with many law enforcement agencies as well as other crime labs across the country. We also participate in post-conviction DNA work, unidentified human remains, a variety of forensic DNA applications.
Shirley Smircic (12:49):
And when evidence is submitted to Bode, how does that work?
Lyndsey Sanney (12:50):
The evidence is submitted either by a tracked courier such as FedEx or UPS or via hand delivery. It will be taken to our evidence unit, which is a secured part of our facility. Only the evidence technicians and members of upper management have access to that part of the building. The evidence will be examined for signs of tampering or any damage to the packaging, and it will be assigned a unique Bode case number that we use to track the evidence as it moves through the laboratory. The evidence is stored in our evidence unit other than when it is in the laboratory for processing, and then it will be returned to the submitting agency upon completion of testing.
Shirley Smircic (13:38):
And is the chain of custody documented at Bode Lab?
Lyndsey Sanney (13:42):
Yes. We document when the evidence is received as well as any time it is taken from the evidence unit into the laboratory. It'll be documented what date and time that occurred and who took it into the laboratory. We then will document when it is returned to our evidence unit and then when it ultimately is returned to the submitting agency.
Shirley Smircic (14:04):
Did you receive items of evidence in this case?
Lyndsey Sanney (14:07):
Yes.
Shirley Smircic (14:08):
What did you receive?
Lyndsey Sanney (14:10):
May I refer to my notes?
Shirley Smircic (14:12):
Yes.
Lyndsey Sanney (14:16):
We received two extracts and a reagent blank designated as Bode item numbers E05, E06, and RB5. We also received a set of swabs. Bode item E01 is described as clitoral hood swabs. Bode item E02 is described as external perianal swabs. Bode item E03 is described as rectal swabs, and body item E04 is described as a vaginal swab.
Shirley Smircic (14:53):
And E05, what was that described as?
Lyndsey Sanney (14:56):
That was a clitoral hood swab extract.
Shirley Smircic (14:59):
And EO6?
Lyndsey Sanney (15:01):
That was an ear swab extract.
Shirley Smircic (15:04):
And you mentioned receiving a reagent extract. What is that?
Lyndsey Sanney (15:08):
A reagent blank is a control that we utilize during testing. It starts as an empty tube at the beginning of the testing process, and we add all of the same chemicals to that tube that are added to the samples. And the purpose of this control is to serve for detection of contamination. So as it moves through the processing alongside the samples, all of the same chemicals are added at each step. Because that tube should contain only the various chemicals, there should be no DNA detected. If at any point we do detect that DNA is present, that could be an indicator of contamination, and it helps us to troubleshoot at what point it may have been introduced.
Shirley Smircic (15:53):
And you received these items of evidence in 2021; is that correct?
Lyndsey Sanney (15:58):
That is correct.
Shirley Smircic (16:00):
And the clitoral hood swab extract and ear swab extract, were those extracts created by the state crime lab?
Lyndsey Sanney (16:08):
Yes.
Shirley Smircic (16:09):
Did you review their analysis and data for those extracts?
Lyndsey Sanney (16:14):
When we receive extracts from another laboratory, we ask that they complete a chart that contains the relevant processing information so that we know what steps have been taken with those extracts prior to being received at Bode, we know how much liquid or what volume should be in those tubes, as well as how much DNA was detected when they did their testing. So we utilize that information to perform our testing.
Shirley Smircic (16:47):
And what were you testing these items of evidence for in general?
Lyndsey Sanney (16:52):
We were requested to perform Y-STR testing, which is a male-specific type of DNA testing, focusing only on the Y chromosome, which is found only in males.
Shirley Smircic (17:05):
I want to start with EO1, the clitoral head swab; EO2, the external perianal swab; EO3, the rectal swab; and EO4 of the vagina swab. Were you testing a different part of the swab than the state crime lab?
Lyndsey Sanney (17:30):
Yes. So there was cotton material remaining on the swab. A swab essentially looks like a Q-tip. There's a stick portion and then a cotton head where any DNA would be collected. So we were testing for items E01 through EO4; we were testing the remaining cotton material on each of those swabs.
Shirley Smircic (17:52):
So you're testing a portion of the swabs that the state crime lab did not test?
Lyndsey Sanney (17:57):
Correct.
Shirley Smircic (17:58):
And how did you test those swabs?
Lyndsey Sanney (18:01):
So we start with the sampling step. So for a swab, that would entail cutting the cotton portion off of the swab stick and placing those into individual sterile tubes, one tube for each sample. Following that is extraction, where we add chemicals to those tubes that break open the cells and release the DNA. Following that is quantification, where we generate an estimate of how much DNA is present in each sample. We have an estimate of total human DNA as well as an estimate of specifically male DNA. So the samples E01 through E04 were stopped after that quantification stage because no male DNA was detected.
Shirley Smircic (18:49):
So on the remaining cotton swabs, the state crime lab did not test; you did not detect any male DNA to test?
Lyndsey Sanney (18:56):
For items E01 through E04, yes, that's correct.
Shirley Smircic (19:02):
Did you also receive... Or you've talked about receiving E05, the clitoral hood swab extract and EO6 ear swab extract. Those extracts, like you said, were created by the state crime lab?
Lyndsey Sanney (19:17):
Yes, that's correct.
Shirley Smircic (19:18):
And what did you test them for?
Lyndsey Sanney (19:21):
We took the extracts, or essentially the liquid DNA that was generated by the crime lab, and we took the quantification values that they provided us. So again, that estimate of how much DNA is in each of those samples, and we performed amplification. During amplification, we generate millions of copies of specific regions of the DNA. In this case, because it was Y-STRs, these would be specific regions on the Y chromosome. The next step would be separation. So we take that amplified DNA and load that onto an instrument. It'll separate out those different DNA regions by size and ultimately allow us to generate our DNA profile from each item.
Shirley Smircic (20:12):
So let's start with E05, the clitoral hood swab extract. Was there an amount of male DNA in that extract?
Lyndsey Sanney (20:23):
Yes. It was a relatively small amount of male DNA, but yes, based on the quantification values provided by the state crime lab, there was a small amount of male DNA present.
Shirley Smircic (20:36):
Given that and the quantification results, did you find it unusual or concerning that you didn't find any male DNA on the rest of the clitoral hood swab?
Lyndsey Sanney (20:47):
No. Given the very low quantity of male DNA present on the remaining swab material, it is not surprising... Or excuse me, given the low male DNA quantity in the extract, it was not surprising to find no male DNA on the remaining swab material.
Shirley Smircic (21:11):
Were you able to take the clitoral hood swab extract with that small amount of male DNA and do any Y-STR testing on it?
Lyndsey Sanney (21:20):
We did do the Y-STR testing on the clitoral hood swab extract. However, no Y-STR profile was obtained.
Shirley Smircic (21:28):
And why was that?
Lyndsey Sanney (21:30):
Again, due to the small DNA quantity, not enough DNA was present to ultimately be detected.
Shirley Smircic (21:40):
So there wasn't enough male DNA to do that type of testing, essentially?
Lyndsey Sanney (21:45):
Correct. The quantity was too limited to ultimately be detected.
Shirley Smircic (21:51):
And let's look at the E06, the ear swab extract. What testing were you able to perform on that?
Lyndsey Sanney (22:02):
Y-STR testing was also performed on the ear swab extract.
Shirley Smircic (22:08):
And what were your results?
Lyndsey Sanney (22:09):
A partial Y-STR profile was obtained consistent with a mixture of at least two individuals. However, due to the limited data obtained, no conclusions could be made on the partial mixture profile.
Shirley Smircic (22:27):
And was there male DNA in E06, the ear swab extract from the state crime lab?
Lyndsey Sanney (22:34):
Based on the provided quantification results, yes. A small amount of male DNA was present.
Shirley Smircic (22:42):
Ms. Sanney, did you prepare a report of your findings?
Lyndsey Sanney (22:46):
I did.
Shirley Smircic (23:04):
May I approach, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (23:05):
You may.
Shirley Smircic (23:14):
Ms. Sanney, I'm showing you what I've marked. I'll first show you State's Exhibit 116. Do you recognize this document?
Lyndsey Sanney (23:24):
I do.
Shirley Smircic (23:24):
What is it?
Lyndsey Sanney (23:25):
This is the report that I authored for this case.
Shirley Smircic (23:28):
Is that a summary report of your findings?
Lyndsey Sanney (23:31):
Yes.
Shirley Smircic (23:32):
Is it what you've testified to here today?
Lyndsey Sanney (23:34):
It is.
Shirley Smircic (23:35):
Any changes, alterations, deletions, modifications?
Lyndsey Sanney (23:38):
No.
Shirley Smircic (23:39):
And is your signature at the bottom of this report?
Lyndsey Sanney (23:41):
It is.
Shirley Smircic (23:42):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 116 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (23:45):
Any objection?
Luther Johnson Britt (23:46):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (23:47):
State's Exhibit 116 will be admitted into evidence.
Shirley Smircic (23:50):
And may I publish?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (24:00):
You may.
Shirley Smircic (24:00):
Ms. Sanney, if you look... Let me just adjust the TV a second. Ms. Sanney, if you look up on the screen at State's 116, is this your lab report you produced?
Lyndsey Sanney (24:10):
Yes, it is.
Shirley Smircic (24:12):
And it shows that you produced this report on November 9th of 2021?
Lyndsey Sanney (24:17):
That's correct.
Shirley Smircic (24:18):
It lists all the items you received as well as your results on the following pages.
Lyndsey Sanney (24:23):
Correct.
Shirley Smircic (24:23):
Ms. Sanney, I'm going to show you what I've marked as State's Exhibit 117, which is a disc. Do you recognize that disc?
Lyndsey Sanney (24:33):
I do.
Shirley Smircic (24:34):
What is it?
Lyndsey Sanney (24:35):
This is the discovery that would've been provided, so a copy of the case file, any relevant photographs taken during testing, data files, chain of custody, et cetera.
Shirley Smircic (24:49):
So would this disc contain your full lab packet, any bench notes, testing done, like you said, photographs, all of that, chain of custody?
Lyndsey Sanney (24:58):
Yes, that's correct.
Shirley Smircic (24:59):
And you reviewed that prior to testifying here this morning?
Lyndsey Sanney (25:02):
I did.
Shirley Smircic (25:03):
Everything appeared to be accurate?
Lyndsey Sanney (25:05):
Yes.
Shirley Smircic (25:06):
No changes of any kind?
Lyndsey Sanney (25:07):
No.
Shirley Smircic (25:08):
Judge, the state would move to enter State's 117 into evidence.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (25:12):
Any objection?
Luther Johnson Britt (25:13):
No, sir. State's Exhibit 117 will be admitted into evidence.
Shirley Smircic (25:17):
Thank you. Nothing further, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (25:25):
Cross-examination?
Luther Johnson Britt (25:27):
Yes, sir. Thank you. Good morning, Ms. Sanney. How are you?
Lyndsey Sanney (25:30):
Good morning. I'm well, thank you. How are you?
Luther Johnson Britt (25:32):
I'm fine, other than this tickle in my throat. Let me just ask you, so when you received the swabs that were labeled as E01 through... One through six, did you also receive any slides?
Lyndsey Sanney (25:57):
If I may refer to my notes. Yes. There was a rectal smear slide submitted but not tested, and then Bode item E04 was actually a smear slide, a vaginal smear that was tested.
Luther Johnson Britt (26:48):
And prior to your testing, were you aware that the state crime lab had not found any evidence of semen in Paitin Fields' vagina or her rectum?
Lyndsey Sanney (27:02):
Yes. It was communicated to us during the testing process that semen had not been detected. That's typically a question we ask because it does impact how we test the evidence, whether semen is present or not.
Luther Johnson Britt (27:17):
So the Y-STR testing that you were doing, that's specifically for the Y chromosome?
Lyndsey Sanney (27:26):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (27:28):
STR testing, can you explain that, please?
Lyndsey Sanney (27:31):
Sure. STR stands for short tandem repeat, and these are short segments of DNA that are repeated back-to-back a varying number of times. That variable number is how we are able to differentiate different people. Different people will have different numbers of repeats at the various DNA locations that are tested, and that ultimately is how we also can then compare evidence to known samples. We're looking to see if those repeat numbers are the same between our evidence and our known individual or if they're different. So Y-STRs are then short tandem repeats or STRs that are found on the Y chromosome.
Luther Johnson Britt (28:16):
So in the STR testing, is it capable of detecting the Y chromosome?
Lyndsey Sanney (28:23):
There is a gender marker in the STR testing. It's called amelogenin, and that will give us either an XX if a female contributor is present or an XY if a male contributor is present.
Luther Johnson Britt (28:39):
And were you provided with the state crime lab reports just for review purposes?
Lyndsey Sanney (28:47):
In reviewing the case today, I did see in some of the communications that we were provided with some reports, yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (28:58):
Is the Y- STR more specific than the STR?
Lyndsey Sanney (29:04):
The testing kit can be a little bit more sensitive than some of the STR testing kits that are on the market. It's more specific in the sense of its specific to male DNA, but other than that, there's not much of a difference. The overall testing process and instrumentation testing methodology is pretty similar between STRs and Y-STRs.
Luther Johnson Britt (29:34):
And you testified that there was no male DNA found on the swabs 01 through 04?
Lyndsey Sanney (29:44):
Correct. They were negative for the presence of male DNA.
Luther Johnson Britt (29:47):
And those specifically were a swab of the clitoral hood as number one. Two was a swab of the rectum. Is that correct? Or perineal?
Lyndsey Sanney (30:02):
Correct. E02 was the external perianal swab.
Luther Johnson Britt (30:06):
Three was the rectum?
Lyndsey Sanney (30:08):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (30:09):
And four was the earbud.
Lyndsey Sanney (30:16):
EO4 was a vaginal smear slide.
Luther Johnson Britt (30:22):
Oh, I'm sorry. Five was the clitoral hood. Was that a swab, or was that a slide or smear?
Lyndsey Sanney (30:27):
EO5 was the clitoral hood extract that was generated by the state crime lab.
Luther Johnson Britt (30:32):
And 06?
Lyndsey Sanney (30:32):
That was the ear swab extract that was also generated by the state crime lab.
Luther Johnson Britt (30:40):
With respect to the ear, were you given the location of where the swabbing had taken place?
Lyndsey Sanney (30:48):
No. We were just given the description of ear swab, and then we tested the extract from the state crime lab.
Luther Johnson Britt (30:55):
And was the actual item of evidence that the earbud submitted along with the-
Shirley Smircic (31:00):
Objection.
Luther Johnson Britt (31:00):
... materials?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (31:01):
Hold on.
Shirley Smircic (31:04):
Form of the question, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (31:06):
All right. Sustained as to form. Rephrase your question.
Luther Johnson Britt (31:10):
Was the actual earbud submitted along with the materials you received from the Pender County Sheriff's Department?
Lyndsey Sanney (31:18):
No, just the actual extract.
Luther Johnson Britt (31:28):
And in your testing, the reagent is a chemical mixture; is that correct?
Lyndsey Sanney (31:38):
The reagent blank, yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (31:41):
And the reagent is to verify that there is no DNA present in the test tube of whatever you're using?
Lyndsey Sanney (31:49):
Correct. The reagent blank confirms that none of the chemicals that are used during the testing contain DNA or any sort of contamination.
Luther Johnson Britt (32:10):
And you were testing different parts of each swab than the state lab had done?
Lyndsey Sanney (32:16):
For EO1 through E04, yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (32:19):
And how were you able to determine which portion that the state lab had tested?
Lyndsey Sanney (32:26):
So when we received the swabs, as I mentioned, these are sort of like Q-tips, where there is a stick portion and then a cotton head. So the portion tested by the state lab is no longer present. That portion has been cut off of the head and tested. So we were working with the cotton material that was remaining on the swab.
Luther Johnson Britt (32:49):
And in the swabs 01 through 04, there was no male DNA depicted?
Lyndsey Sanney (32:57):
In Bode's testing, yes, correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (33:00):
And in E05 and EO6, you were able to find some part or particle of male DNA?
Lyndsey Sanney (33:13):
Based on the information provided by the state crime lab from their testing, yes. A small amount of male DNA was detected on both the extracts for E05 and E06.
Luther Johnson Britt (33:24):
When you say a small amount, was that quantified?
Lyndsey Sanney (33:28):
Yes, I have those values.
Luther Johnson Britt (33:30):
What were those values?
Lyndsey Sanney (33:40):
For E05, which was the clitoral hood swab extract, the amount of male DNA present was 0.0002 nanograms per microliter. And for the ear swabs E06, the amount of male DNA present was 0.0016 nanograms per microliter.
Luther Johnson Britt (34:10):
And so when we're talking nanograms, that's an amount that's to the right of the decimal point when the number's actually written?
Lyndsey Sanney (34:21):
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Luther Johnson Britt (34:24):
A nanogram, you just referred to the values at 0. 0002?
Lyndsey Sanney (34:32):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (34:34):
And then 0.00016?
Lyndsey Sanney (34:39):
The second is just two zeros, so 0.0016.
Luther Johnson Britt (34:49):
And when that number is actually written, those figures are to the right of the decimal point?
Lyndsey Sanney (34:59):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (35:01):
And those are very, very small.
Lyndsey Sanney (35:03):
Yes...
Speaker 1 (35:01):
And those were very, very small?
Lyndsey Sanney (35:03):
Yes. In an ideal situation, we would like to have one nanogram of DNA to work with as our total amount of DNA present in a sample. These values are obviously much, much lower than that. For reference, when Bode performs quantification, our limit of detection is 0.001. So the clitoral hood swab extract falls below the threshold that Bode has set for our limit of detection.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
When you say threshold, what do you mean?
Lyndsey Sanney (35:42):
It's the limit of detection for the quantification test. So essentially the lowest level that the instruments or the test can accurately quantify. Ours is capped at 0.001 nanograms per microliter.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
And you were not surprised at those numbers based upon information you received from the State Lab?
Lyndsey Sanney (36:08):
Correct. Based on the values received from the State Crime Lab, the results are definitely in line with those very small DNA quantities.
Speaker 1 (36:18):
And so as a result of those low quantities, you were not able to develop a profile?
Lyndsey Sanney (36:26):
From the clitoral hood swab extract E05, no profile was developed. There was a partial profile developed from E06, the ear swab extract. However, the data was too limited to draw any conclusions.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
So you were not able to make any type of identification?
Lyndsey Sanney (36:46):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (36:58):
Redirect?
Speaker 1 (36:58):
No, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (37:01):
Is this witness subject to recall?
Lyndsey Sanney (37:03):
No, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (37:04):
On behalf of the Plaintiff?
Lyndsey Sanney (37:05):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (37:06):
All right, ma'am, at this time you're released from your obligations of your subpoena. You can step down. You're free to go.
Lyndsey Sanney (37:10):
Thank you.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (37:29):
State, you may call your next witness.
Lawyer (37:30):
State would call investigator Eric Short to the stand.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (37:36):
All right, sir, if you can make your way around to the witness stand, please. You can place your left hand on the Bible. Raise your right hand.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Investigator Eric Short (37:53):
I do.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
Thank you. You may be seated.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (38:03):
All right, sir. As you've heard me instruct the other witnesses, please make sure to speak loudly and clearly into the microphone. Make sure all of your answers are out loud and wait for the attorney to be done asking their question before you give a response. Can you do that?
Investigator Eric Short (38:15):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (38:16):
Thank you, sir. State, you may proceed.
Lawyer (38:19):
Investigator Short, can you state your name and occupation for the jury, please?
Investigator Eric Short (38:23):
Eric, E-R-I-C. Last name is Short, S-H-O-R-T. I'm currently an investigator for the District Attorney's Office here in New Hanover and Pender County. How
Lawyer (38:31):
Long have you been an investigator with the District Attorney's Office?
Investigator Eric Short (38:34):
I think I'm close to the second year now here.
Lawyer (38:37):
And prior to being an investigator with the District Attorney's Office, what were your duty... Well, where were you employed at?
Investigator Eric Short (38:46):
Previous to the District Attorney's Office, I did do five years with the Pender County Sheriff's Office. I started there in May of 2019.
Lawyer (38:54):
Prior to May of 2019, were you sworn with any other law enforcement agencies?
Investigator Eric Short (38:59):
Yes. In 2005, I started my law enforcement career with the Duplin County Sheriff's Office. I did about two to three years there on patrol and then was assigned to criminal investigations, which I remained until 2017.
Lawyer (39:12):
And are you currently sworn with any law enforcement
Investigator Eric Short (39:16):
Agencies? Yes. I'm sworn as a reserve officer with Wallace Police Department, which is in Duplin County, also with the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office as a reserve investigator.
Lawyer (39:27):
Now let me take you to 2019. You said at that time you began your career at Pender County Sheriff's Office?
Investigator Eric Short (39:35):
Yes.
Lawyer (39:36):
And when you came to Pender County Sheriff's Office, what were your duties and responsibilities?
Investigator Eric Short (39:42):
So I come in the door working, I was directly assigned to criminal investigations, and in that unit, basically I tried to attach to all the major crime that occurred, including the fire, arson, homicide, and I did a lot with SVU, Special Victims Unit and ICAC investigations.
Lawyer (40:03):
And were you assisting... Did you have your own cases or were you assisting others with casework?
Investigator Eric Short (40:09):
I did both. I carried my own caseload plus assisted other investigators as well.
Lawyer (40:17):
So when you arrived at Pender County Sheriff's Office in 2019, did you begin... Well, did you know at that time, Detective Leatherwood?
Investigator Eric Short (40:31):
I had never worked with him prior to coming to Pender County Sheriff's Office, but I did meet him when I started working there, yes.
Lawyer (40:38):
And in 2019, did you assist him with the investigation of this case in 2019?
Investigator Eric Short (40:47):
No. Being new to the agency, obviously you have to work a few cases for the one, I'm assuring, so they can trust you to do their work, basically. So I did that for some time working with other investigators assigned to homicide. By the time that I come around to pick up this case, Detective Leatherwood had retired.
Lawyer (41:08):
So let me talk to you about this case. When did you start investigating this case?
Investigator Eric Short (41:15):
October 20th, 2020.
Lawyer (41:18):
And how was it that you were assigned this case or started investigating this case?
Investigator Eric Short (41:26):
Typically, I enjoy working cold cases. This case was not considered a cold case. Basically, it was a unsolved case as a suspect was developed during the initial phases of it. So I picked it up to basically review the case with a fresh set of eyes.
Lawyer (41:45):
Is that something that you did back then for Pender County Sheriff's Office, review older cases or unsolved cases?
Investigator Eric Short (41:52):
Yes.
Lawyer (41:53):
So when you picked this up in October of 2020, when you're picking up somebody else's investigation and it's a fresh set of eyes, how do you go about doing that? How do you go about beginning an investigation into an unsolved case?
Investigator Eric Short (42:11):
Each case is different. In this case, particularly, I had learned that the investigation didn't really match or the investigators didn't match a ligature to the impression that I could see on her neck. There was no DNA or physical evidence that matched that ligature. And so basically I started with the evidence of this case to submit to standard lab testing, and then I would later reach out to Bode Lab for private testing to make sure we had exhausted all efforts in the DNA or physical evidence testing that occurred.
Lawyer (42:53):
Did you review Detective Leatherwood's investigative reports, other investigators' reports?
Investigator Eric Short (43:02):
Yes.
Lawyer (43:02):
Photographs such as that?
Investigator Eric Short (43:04):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (43:05):
All right. And you came to a point early on that what? You're asking for additional testing. What are you doing?
Investigator Eric Short (43:19):
So to test the physical evidence, I did learn in there, I think they sent like 10 DNA standards. DNA standards is all these samples that they obtained during interviews. So from the Jamie Sykes, all these other individuals that you've heard from, all that is submitted to be tested against all the physical evidence. So basically, I think they had roughly 10 profiles. We submitted the 10 profiles. I made sure that all of them had been submitted to the State Crime Lab to determine if it was involved or not involved in the physical evidence that had been collected. In this stage of the investigation, I can only submit five items of evidence to the lab at one time per discipline. Obviously in this case, we were seeking it to send the DNA, so it takes a long time sending only five items at the time. Again, too, COVID factored in this investigation, which drug it out even longer as everything was stalled.
Lawyer (44:20):
So in 2020, when you were reviewing this case, are you saying that some of the standards were not sent to the lab yet?
Investigator Eric Short (44:32):
That's correct. And it seemed like in my review, I noticed that they did not... Investigators had not obtained a DNA standard from the mouth of Savannah Fields, which was the biological sister. So I obtained that standard to submit to the lab as well.
Lawyer (44:47):
All right. Then what did you do? You're looking at it, you're looking at pictures, you're looking at investigative reports, you're looking at the physical evidence, you're asking that the lab test... Did you send additional items to the lab to be tested, physical evidence?
Investigator Eric Short (45:09):
I'm sorry. Only thing that I sent to the lab was a few items of evidence that basically I wanted additional testing done. I can look them up if you need me to, but the majority of the evidence had already been swabbed and processed at the lab. So only thing needed to be additionally done is when we sent these new standards to the lab, them standards were applied under a new technology. I think the DNA expert called STAR testing, which is more sensitive to DNA results than what original investigators had opportunity to use.
Lawyer (45:47):
All right. So were you in contact with the State Crime Lab on what technology they had at that time?
Investigator Eric Short (45:55):
Yes.
Lawyer (45:56):
And who did you talk to over there?
Investigator Eric Short (45:58):
Shane Wilcox, I believe was my main point of contact.
Lawyer (46:02):
And what was he telling you at the time?
Investigator Eric Short (46:04):
Basically that if I resubmitted standards to the lab every... So when I submitted Savannah's standard, for instance, that standard, along with everything else that had been submitted previous to my submission would be tested under the new standard.
Lawyer (46:26):
When did you start talking to Shane and when did you start working that part of the case, meaning retesting against known standards and additional items?
Investigator Eric Short (46:37):
Somewhere around October 2021.
Lawyer (46:40):
So from October, let's talk about what you did from October 20th to October... Strike that. October 2020 to October 2021. Talk about what you did during the course of your review and investigation in this case.
Investigator Eric Short (46:57):
So again, the evidence testing process of this takes a super long time with COVID, five items to discipline at the time. I'd issued a bunch of administrative stuff like social service record warrants, trying to obtain any data I could get from any source that I could have. I issued search warrants for the Facebooks that were utilized by Haley Fawcett, Lisa Hunt. I don't think I found the Facebook for Mr. Dale Hunt, and also issued other digital warrants such as Google warrants, things like that, trying to see if there was a digital footprint that would apply to the case.
Lawyer (47:33):
And did you issue Google warrants for Haley Fawcett?
Investigator Eric Short (47:44):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (47:46):
And how did you do that?
Investigator Eric Short (47:49):
So through law enforcement databases, we can determine if a individual has a Gmail account or a Google based account. I issued search warrants in this case to Google for five accounts, sir.
Lawyer (48:03):
Okay. And what five accounts?
Investigator Eric Short (48:07):
DaleSharby@gmail.com. You want me to spell that for you or you go? Lisaflowers43@gmail.com, lisahunt41714@gmail.com, sharby67@gmail.com and haley.personal.17@ gmail.com.
Lawyer (48:32):
Well, during the course of your investigation and reviewing Detective Leatherwood's case file, did you believe that Haley Fawcett was there the night that Paitin was sexually assaulted and killed?
Investigator Eric Short (48:45):
No, sir.
Lawyer (48:46):
So why are you reviewing or getting Google records for Haley Fawcett?
Investigator Eric Short (48:50):
I learned through the case file that often from what the record reflected or the case file reflected that David would utilize Haley Fawcett's phone.
Lawyer (49:02):
Did you issue then a warrant or a search warrant for those Google records for Haley Fawcett?
Investigator Eric Short (49:09):
Yes.
Lawyer (49:10):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (49:11):
You may.
Lawyer (49:18):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as 118, State's Exhibit 118. Do you recognize that disc?
Investigator Eric Short (49:24):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (49:24):
What is that disc?
Investigator Eric Short (49:25):
That's the Google records received from the search warrant issued.
Lawyer (49:29):
And have you reviewed these records?
Investigator Eric Short (49:31):
Yes. My signature's on it, yes.
Lawyer (49:33):
All right. Have they been altered in any way?
Investigator Eric Short (49:35):
No.
Lawyer (49:36):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 118.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (49:38):
Any objection?
Speaker 1 (49:39):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (49:39):
State's Exhibit 118 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (49:43):
Did you also issue Google warrants for the other profiles that you just previously named for Dale Hunt and Lisa Hunt?
Investigator Eric Short (49:52):
Yes.
Lawyer (50:08):
I'm going to show you State's Exhibit 119. Do you recognize 119?
Investigator Eric Short (50:12):
Yes.
Lawyer (50:12):
And what is 119?
Investigator Eric Short (50:15):
That's the remaining Google records for the four accounts.
Lawyer (50:19):
And those four accounts were Lisa Flowers. Who did you believe Lisa Flowers was?
Investigator Eric Short (50:25):
To be Dale's... David's mother.
Lawyer (50:27):
Lisa Hunt?
Investigator Eric Short (50:28):
Yes.
Lawyer (50:30):
You issued a Google warrant for Lisa Hunt's account?
Investigator Eric Short (50:33):
Yes.
Lawyer (50:34):
And Dale's account?
Investigator Eric Short (50:36):
Yes.
Lawyer (50:38):
Have you reviewed this flash drive that contains his records?
Investigator Eric Short (50:41):
Yes.
Lawyer (50:41):
Have they been altered in any way?
Investigator Eric Short (50:42):
No, sir.
Lawyer (50:43):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 119.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (50:45):
Any objection?
Speaker 1 (50:46):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (50:47):
State's Exhibit 119 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (50:55):
And did that take some time to receive those records back from Google?
Investigator Eric Short (50:59):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (51:06):
And for... Well, when you get Google records back, is it just one little item or is it a voluminous amount of data?
Investigator Eric Short (51:17):
No, basically the data that returns if you're a Google user is typically a mirror image of almost the way it is on a Google device, like it's broke down into contacts, chats, photographs, searches in like your My Activities, such as on the internet website, your internet browser on your phone. If you go in and look at history, that same data basically is contained in Google, basically in the same or similar format.
Lawyer (51:46):
Can you also get pictures from Google records?
Investigator Eric Short (51:49):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (51:50):
Are pictures taken on either Google device or through a Google account?
Investigator Eric Short (51:55):
Yes.
Lawyer (51:56):
How about videos?
Investigator Eric Short (51:57):
Yes.
Lawyer (51:59):
How about text messages?
Investigator Eric Short (52:02):
You can, but it's typically not as often because people use other platforms to communicate versus a Google platform in this case.
Lawyer (52:09):
What about Google searches?
Investigator Eric Short (52:12):
Yes, sir. That's under the My Activity tab.
Lawyer (52:16):
And those are internet Google searches, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (52:18):
Correct.
Lawyer (52:19):
Now, when you were reviewing State's Exhibit 119, those being the Google records for Dale Hunt and Lisa Hunt, did you find any items of interest in those Google records?
Investigator Eric Short (52:34):
I did not.
Lawyer (52:37):
When you reviewed State's Exhibit 118, which were Google records of Haley Fawcett, did you find any items of interest on those Google records?
Investigator Eric Short (52:50):
Yes.
Lawyer (52:51):
And what did you find?
Investigator Eric Short (52:53):
So would you like me to read them all out, sir? November the 28th, 2017, it appeared this account searched "Pender mugshots." Searched "Pender County deputies investigate five-year-old dies from assault." There was five additional searches that same day. On November the 28th, 2017, they searched, it appears to be fax.com, but it's "Did you know fax.com happens-murder-happens takes place?" That was searched two times. On the 28th, 2017, "If a murder happens in a home, does the house have to be taped off?" That was searched three times. November the 16th, 2017, "How long does it take DNA tests to see if one matches another DNA?" That search was conducted four times. November the 16th, 2017, there was a WCT story. I apologize, let me back up. "Wct.com/story/ 14671895/burgawpolicedepartment." November 16th, 2017, WCT Burgaw was searched again. November the 3rd, 2017 was a pornography video.
Lawyer (54:19):
And again, why did you seek Google records for Haley Fawcett and not David Prevatte?
Investigator Eric Short (54:30):
Again, through the investigation or the file, I determined that they were not together that night, but David often utilized her phone or anybody's phone that he was friends with is what the record indicated to me.
Lawyer (54:45):
Did you find any record at that time, around the time that Paitin was killed, that David had his own phone?
Investigator Eric Short (54:54):
I did not. No, sir.
Lawyer (54:56):
How about later on?
Investigator Eric Short (54:59):
Yes, sir. When I arrested David, he did have a phone in his possession.
Lawyer (55:02):
All right. But not around the time of 2017 that you... Through your investigative reports or reviewing investigative reports?
Investigator Eric Short (55:11):
That's correct.
Lawyer (55:16):
All right. In addition to getting digital records, did you find any items of interest in any Facebook records when you searched Facebook?
Investigator Eric Short (55:27):
No, sir.
Lawyer (55:29):
And who did you search Facebook for?
Investigator Eric Short (55:32):
Basically the same profiles that I could find for the immediate family there that was in the house.
Lawyer (55:37):
And you found nothing of interest there?
Investigator Eric Short (55:39):
No, sir.
Lawyer (55:40):
And in addition to then asking the lab to retest or use or retest things, use additional technology to test things, or sending new items and your digital warrants, what else did you do in the course of your investigation?
Investigator Eric Short (55:58):
So after I started getting evidence back from the lab that I had submitted, I then started reviewing the physical evidence myself after the testing was complete.
Lawyer (56:09):
And how did you do that?
Investigator Eric Short (56:12):
So our evidence custodian, Lieutenant Lee Wells, I would ask to see particular items of evidence and he would pull that item of evidence out and I could go in and view it present with the evidence custodian.
Lawyer (56:27):
And why are you doing this?
Investigator Eric Short (56:29):
So I first started with the belt in this case, which once we measured, it wasn't consistent with the ligature around her neck.
Lawyer (56:38):
Let me stop you there. You say the belt. Is that... You've been in the courtroom the whole trial, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (56:44):
Yes.
Lawyer (56:45):
Is that the belt that was taken from or seized from Haley Fawcett?
Investigator Eric Short (56:50):
Yes.
Lawyer (56:51):
Let me ask you, why was it seized from Haley Fawcett?
Investigator Eric Short (56:54):
It was my understanding from the case that she had to wear a particular color belt maybe, or could not wear a particular color belt. That was the only belt they had, so David loaned her his belt and she gave him her belt.
Lawyer (57:09):
Okay. And you believe that belt that's in evidence now that was seized from Haley was actually David's belt?
Investigator Eric Short (57:17):
Correct.
Lawyer (57:19):
All right, continue on.
Investigator Eric Short (57:20):
So I did the... Once I reviewed the belt in person, I didn't... It was inconsistent to me with the ligature that was on her neck.
Lawyer (57:30):
Why is that?
Investigator Eric Short (57:31):
The width of that belt is too wide for the quarter inch of intact skin, as Dr. Kelly referred to it, so it's inconsistent.
Lawyer (57:40):
All right.
Investigator Eric Short (57:41):
To take that a step further though, I did take impact filter, the impact filter that we've learned about this in as an exhibit, I did send down to Wilmington PD for impact testing, which injects the sterile liquid into it, sucks it out, and that filter was obtained and it was submitted to the lab.
Lawyer (58:01):
All right. Why'd you do that?
Investigator Eric Short (58:04):
To ensure that I wasn't missing DNA that... I mean, obviously by this time, other wearers had wore the belt. I wanted to make sure, being it was cloth, that we had exhausted efforts with DNA as well.
Lawyer (58:17):
All right. Even though you didn't believe it was the ligature in this case?
Investigator Eric Short (58:22):
Correct.
Lawyer (58:24):
All right. What else did you do?
Investigator Eric Short (58:26):
So then I moved... I think between this timeframe here, I started studying the images of her neck and doing that, I realized by altering the images, or I say altering the images, adjusting the contrast and clarity, just like we do on computers every day, I could see a latent impression in the ligature that appeared to have somewhat of a hook shape.
Lawyer (58:52):
So after reviewing the photographs, you could see those photographs enhanced and original, is that correct or incorrect?
Investigator Eric Short (59:01):
Correct. The first images I believe I saw were untouched were the autopsy images where the victim's head's lying on the table with the neck extended back, I could see a pattern in the, or latent pattern in the ligature.
Lawyer (59:16):
And then they were enhanced by Eric Kelly and you could see them further?
Investigator Eric Short (59:21):
Yes.
Lawyer (59:22):
So after reviewing those photographs, what do you do as a result of reviewing those photographs?
Investigator Eric Short (59:28):
So then I start looking at the physical evidence that was seized in the original case from the scene. I think there was 10 cord seized total.
Lawyer (59:41):
What cords are those?
Investigator Eric Short (59:56):
Give me one second, sir. I don't have a lot of room here. Do you want the actual item number, sir, or just a general description?
Lawyer (01:00:22):
That's fine.
Investigator Eric Short (01:00:23):
The cords that were seized were the phone chargers, the vacuum cleaner cord, the hot glue gun cord, all the cords basically that we've heard about in this trial.
Lawyer (01:00:31):
All right. So you reviewed all of them?
Investigator Eric Short (01:00:35):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:00:36):
And what did you find or what did you determine after reviewing those?
Investigator Eric Short (01:00:42):
The earbuds, when I did pull them out to review them and measured them single stranded and then doubled up as well to obtain the measurements is the only item of physical evidence we had in custody that had the loop that was consistent with the latent impression, in my opinion, on Paitin Fields' neck.
Lawyer (01:01:07):
Okay. You said that you measured them?
Investigator Eric Short (01:01:08):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:01:09):
Tell the jury what you did when you pulled those items of evidence, the earbuds, the red earbuds out of the evidence vault and what did you do with them?
Investigator Eric Short (01:01:21):
So I used a digital caliper just to determine a measurement, that way it would be as precise as we could get it. The single strand measures about 0.0115, which is less than three sixteenths of an inch. And then when you double it up, meaning put the two conductors side by side, it measured. 206, which is still smaller than a quarter of inch. The intact area of the skin for Dr. Kelly was quarter inch, so I know the ligature had to be smaller than a quarter of an inch to make the ligature impression.
Lawyer (01:02:01):
During this time, were you discussing what you were finding with Dr. Kelly?
Investigator Eric Short (01:02:08):
Yes. I communicated with her probably about two or three times, I think, regarding the ligature of Paitin's neck.
Lawyer (01:02:14):
Why?
Investigator Eric Short (01:02:16):
The medical legal investigation comes to an intersection at the autopsy, that's where the doctor gives an opinion and then law enforcement tell their findings, and that's how we all work together and they basically say medical legal investigation because we'll offer what we find from scenes and especially with weapons, and the doctor has to agree or disagree if that weapon can cause that injury to a human body.
Lawyer (01:02:46):
All right. So you're reviewing the earbuds in person, you're measuring them. What did you notice, if anything, about those earbuds?
Investigator Eric Short (01:02:57):
There was about a 14-inch section of the earbuds that it appeared to me to have a rippling effect as if the sheath had come away from the conductor and wiring is typically where that [inaudible 01:03:12] is found, but basically you can see that rippling effect in an approximate 14-inch section.
Lawyer (01:03:19):
And did you photograph, as you're doing these measurements and reviewing these earbuds at the law enforcement center, are you recording what you're seeing in a photograph?
Investigator Eric Short (01:03:34):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:03:34):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:03:35):
You may.
Lawyer (01:03:45):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 120 for identification purposes. Do you recognize this disc?
Investigator Eric Short (01:03:51):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:03:51):
What is this disc?
Investigator Eric Short (01:03:53):
That's the photographs I obtained during the evidence examination of the earbuds.
Lawyer (01:03:57):
All right. Have they been altered in any way, these photographs?
Investigator Eric Short (01:04:00):
No, sir.
Lawyer (01:04:00):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 120.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:04:02):
Any objection?
Speaker 1 (01:04:04):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:04:04):
State's Exhibit 120 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (01:04:07):
And will these photographs assist you in your testimony today?
Investigator Eric Short (01:04:10):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:04:11):
Permission to publish State's Exhibit 120, Judge. Detective Short, can you see the screen?
Investigator Eric Short (01:05:33):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:05:35):
I'm showing you a series of photographs from State's Exhibit 120. This photograph is 67-73. What are we looking at here?
Investigator Eric Short (01:05:45):
That is the original packaging of the earbuds as I found it.
Lawyer (01:05:52):
At this point in time, when you did your physical inspection of these earbuds, they had already been sent off to the lab?
Investigator Eric Short (01:05:58):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:05:59):
They had already been swabbed by the State Crime Lab?
Investigator Eric Short (01:06:03):
Yes, some time ago. I never had to resend this item of evidence back to the State Crime Lab.
Lawyer (01:06:09):
Do you remember what date that you conducted this inspection on?
Investigator Eric Short (01:06:18):
October the 5th, 2021. I'm pretty sure.
Lawyer (01:06:21):
I'm going to show you photograph 67-74. What are we looking at?
Investigator Eric Short (01:06:37):
That's the backside of the evidence packaging to show the seal had not been opened.
Lawyer (01:06:41):
67-78?
Investigator Eric Short (01:06:50):
This is the contents of the bag coming out.
Lawyer (01:06:56):
67-79?
Investigator Eric Short (01:06:59):
That's the open paper bag that has the earbuds inside of it.
Lawyer (01:07:04):
Okay. And this is before you had manipulated or touched them in any way?
Investigator Eric Short (01:07:09):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:07:09):
And if we zoom in a little bit, there appears to be a loose knot in one portion and then a tighter knot in a different portion?
Investigator Eric Short (01:07:19):
That's what it appears.
Lawyer (01:07:28):
67-80?
Investigator Eric Short (01:07:29):
Just another shot top down of the earbuds inside of the packaging.
Lawyer (01:07:33):
67-83, what are we looking at here?
Investigator Eric Short (01:07:43):
I can't see good from here, but it appears to be this section that I was observing that has the rippling effect as it has been stretched. Are you
Lawyer (01:07:53):
Are you having a hard time seeing? Do you need to step down and look at it?
Investigator Eric Short (01:07:57):
Yeah.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:07:58):
All right, sir, you may step down.
Investigator Eric Short (01:08:08):
Yeah. So that is the section that appears to be stretched.
Lawyer (01:08:20):
And which section?
Investigator Eric Short (01:08:21):
And you can see the rippling effect along the conductor, and this appears to be about a 14-inch section.
Lawyer (01:08:26):
67- 84, what are we looking at?
Investigator Eric Short (01:08:39):
Just a close up shot of that rippling effect.
Lawyer (01:08:42):
67-88?
Investigator Eric Short (01:08:49):
That's where I pulled the tape across the measurement. You can give or take an inch. It almost runs back about an inch past the knot, but everything's consistent in that 14-inch section.
Lawyer (01:09:04):
67-90?
Investigator Eric Short (01:09:05):
Again, another shot showing the rippling effect on the conductor.
Lawyer (01:09:14):
67-98?
Investigator Eric Short (01:09:16):
That's a pair of Hornady digital calipers that's used to measure. I had it set in the inch settings showing it was on zero.
Lawyer (01:09:23):
67-99?
Investigator Eric Short (01:09:30):
So I'm measuring here one conductor, the width of it, which was 0.115 inch.
Lawyer (01:09:35):
One strand, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:09:36):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:09:41):
Where are you measuring it at?
Investigator Eric Short (01:09:43):
On just the very end that was not stretched. That way we could get a true measurement of what the conductors would measure.
Lawyer (01:09:52):
And 0.115 of an inch, is that more or less than three sixteenths?
Investigator Eric Short (01:09:59):
Less than three sixteenths of an inch.
Investigator Eric Short (01:10:00):
... three sixteenths of an inch.
Lawyer (01:10:00):
6801?
Investigator Eric Short (01:10:11):
I wanted to get the total length of the earbuds together, so I'm holding both of the hook ends in one hand. My partner's holding the other end that would connect to a device and then it measures approximately 51 inches or 51 and a half inches.
Lawyer (01:10:29):
And you stretched them out. You stretched the earpiece portion, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:10:39):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:10:45):
6803?
Investigator Eric Short (01:10:47):
0.206 inches is what the conductor measures doubled-up, so both conductors beside each other.
Lawyer (01:10:55):
Is that less than or more than a quarter inch?
Investigator Eric Short (01:10:57):
Less.
Lawyer (01:10:57):
All right, you can sit. May I approach the witness?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:11:12):
You may.
Lawyer (01:11:29):
I'm going to show you what's been admitted as State's Exhibit 43, and ask, can you pull the earbuds out of State's Exhibit 43? Permission to [inaudible 01:11:46] as I'm-
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:11:46):
You may.
Lawyer (01:11:46):
... going through this testimony, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:11:47):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:11:54):
As you look at the earbuds today and find them, it looks like a bird's nest. Is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:11:59):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:11:59):
But when you were inspecting them after they had already been to the State Crime Lab, you had at least extended them out to measure them, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:12:12):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:12:13):
And the earbuds were not in a... When you were inspecting them, they were not in a bird's nest. That's not the way you found them?
Investigator Eric Short (01:12:23):
No.
Lawyer (01:12:24):
But you did find them with at least two knots in them, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:12:28):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:12:29):
Are those knots still in there?
Investigator Eric Short (01:12:31):
There's still a knot here, and then this was in a loose knot. Right there is the loose knot.
Lawyer (01:12:40):
And you didn't change that at all?
Investigator Eric Short (01:12:41):
No, sir.
Lawyer (01:12:43):
With those earbuds, can you show... Can he step down and show the jury what he saw of the stretching of the sheath?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:12:52):
Yes, sir. Why don't you go ahead and step down in front of the jury?
Lawyer (01:13:48):
Thank you. Investigator Short, can you put those back? Investigator Short, after reviewing and inspecting these earbuds, what did you do next in the course of your investigation?
Investigator Eric Short (01:14:28):
I'm pretty sure this is about the time that I would have another conversation with Dr. Kelly. I would advise her of my findings with the measurements, the stretching that's consistent on the ligature along with it matching what, in my opinion, the latent impression on Paitin's neck, along with the DNA findings contained in both Paitin and David Prevatte's DNA. And basically I would ask her, does she agree or disagree that this ligature could cause the injuries she documented? Which she advised me it was consistent, therefore, I documented that.
Lawyer (01:15:18):
During the course of your reviewing Detective Leatherwood's investigative report, Robert Fields was who?
Investigator Eric Short (01:15:30):
The biological father of Paitin and Savannah.
Lawyer (01:15:33):
Did you confirm this by sending his standard to the lab?
Investigator Eric Short (01:15:37):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:15:38):
Was he declared then the father of both Paitin and Savannah?
Investigator Eric Short (01:15:42):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:15:43):
Could you determine if he was there the night that Paitin was killed?
Investigator Eric Short (01:15:50):
There was no DNA reflected in any report that I had reviewed that shows Robert Fields was at the residence or own any of the evidence seized from the residence.
Lawyer (01:16:01):
Was he at the location at 104 Blackwater Drive, November 12th or 13th?
Investigator Eric Short (01:16:08):
No.
Lawyer (01:16:10):
You've been sitting here all the last two weeks, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:16:15):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:16:18):
Do you remember seeing in evidence a pink blanket?
Investigator Eric Short (01:16:22):
I do.
Lawyer (01:16:22):
And you heard, I believe, that it was Shane Wilcox or another [inaudible 01:16:28] saying that there was a pink blanket with Robert's DNA and Paitin's DNA on it?
Investigator Eric Short (01:16:33):
That blanket, the best I can recall, Detective Leatherwood, Lisa Hunt provided that blanket to Detective Leatherwood while he was at the hospital taking his final photographs of Paitin Fields.
Lawyer (01:16:47):
Did you review his final photographs?
Investigator Eric Short (01:16:48):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:16:52):
[inaudible 01:16:52]. I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's 121. Do you recognize State's Exhibit 121?
Investigator Eric Short (01:17:05):
Yes. That's the final photographs of Detective Leatherwood that contains the photograph of the blanket.
Lawyer (01:17:13):
Where was that blanket when it was photographed?
Investigator Eric Short (01:17:16):
At the hospital, on the bed that Paitin was in.
Lawyer (01:17:19):
Fairly and accurately depict the pink blanket that's in evidence here today?
Investigator Eric Short (01:17:27):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:17:28):
And will it assist you in your testimony today?
Investigator Eric Short (01:17:30):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:17:30):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 121.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:17:32):
Any Objection?
Mr. Britt (01:17:35):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:17:36):
State's Exhibit 121 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (01:17:39):
Permission to publish?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:17:40):
You may.
(01:18:11)
Anything regarding this particular piece of evidence that should be shown on the broadcast?
Lawyer (01:18:15):
It should not be shown on the broadcast, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:18:17):
All right. This evidence should not be shown on broadcast. Thank you.
Lawyer (01:18:35):
Detective Short, I'm showing you State's Exhibit 121, photograph labeled 80. Do you recognize this from your review of the case file?
Investigator Eric Short (01:18:45):
Yes. That blanket is the blanket that Ms. Lisa Hunt provided to Detective Leatherwood on-
Lawyer (01:18:49):
And-
Investigator Eric Short (01:18:49):
... the 15th of November.
Lawyer (01:18:52):
It was sent to the State Crime Lab too, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:18:54):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:18:55):
And it came back with Robert's DNA and Paitin's DNA on it?
Investigator Eric Short (01:19:01):
I think so. Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:19:24):
Investigator Short, when you came into the case in October of 2020, did you already have your mind made up about what happened to Paitin and who did it?
Mr. Britt (01:19:43):
Objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:19:45):
Overruled.
Investigator Eric Short (01:19:48):
No. I had to review the case file. And this case happened so long ago, I had to review the case file as it was, but still it doesn't... I mean, you have to be led by the facts in this case, and the facts in this case led me to one individual, sir.
Lawyer (01:20:13):
You still looked at alternate theories that were either presented to you or that you could come up with in your mind, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:20:25):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:20:34):
After reviewing the earbuds, talking with Dr. Kelly, submitting other items to the Crime Lab, waiting on those to come back, what else did you do in the course of this investigation?
Investigator Eric Short (01:20:51):
My goal was to have Savannah re-interviewed at Carousel. She had conducted two interviews, and my goal was to have this done prior to his arrest. That did not happen because I scheduled an appointment for January of 2022. Savannah went to this appointment, however, had a temperature of 101. She had COVID at the time, so that delayed it that day plus several more days. So, she didn't get the Carousel interview until 2/18 of '22.
(01:21:24)
And at the Carousel, I think we moved on to ask for a warrant for his arrest, sir.
Lawyer (01:21:40):
You arrested David Prevatte on what day?
Investigator Eric Short (01:21:43):
February the 4th, 2022.
Lawyer (01:21:47):
You had sent Savannah to the Carousel Center when?
Investigator Eric Short (01:21:51):
On January the 24th, '22.
Lawyer (01:21:56):
Then she was not able to interview because she had COVID?
Investigator Eric Short (01:21:59):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:22:01):
You ended up sending her back after?
Investigator Eric Short (01:22:03):
Another appointment was made on February the 18th of 2022.
Lawyer (01:22:08):
At this time, you had already arrested David Prevatte?
Investigator Eric Short (01:22:12):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:22:13):
Where did you arrest him at?
Investigator Eric Short (01:22:15):
I'll say it and then spell it for the court reporters, because I'm sure I'm not saying this right. The Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office in Louisiana. That's L-A-F-O-U-R-C-H-E.
Lawyer (01:22:29):
In Louisiana?
Investigator Eric Short (01:22:30):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:22:41):
Just a minute, Your Honor.
(01:22:55)
Why did you send Savannah to the Carousel Center?
Investigator Eric Short (01:22:59):
I wanted another interview as time had progressed. I'm not qualified to interview a child, especially with a child like this with a disability. I think she has fetal alcohol syndrome, and to the degree that... We're trained that as time progresses, children will disclose more each time.
Lawyer (01:23:27):
Just a minute, Your Honor.
(01:23:55)
Investigator Short, as reviewing this file, did Pender County Sheriff's Office seize the underwear worn by Paitin Fields on November 13th, 2017?
Investigator Eric Short (01:24:12):
No, sir.
Lawyer (01:24:13):
Why not?
Investigator Eric Short (01:24:14):
It's my understanding by what the case file reflects is hospital staff had discarded the underwear prior to law enforcement ever getting to Pender ER. I think a phone call was made as well as documented, but they had been discarded.
Lawyer (01:24:29):
Was that Pender County ER or New Hanover Hospital?
Investigator Eric Short (01:24:34):
Pender County ER.
Lawyer (01:24:37):
Were you able to determine this defendant's date of birth?
Investigator Eric Short (01:24:43):
Yes. November the 10th, 1998.
Lawyer (01:24:54):
How old was he at the time?
Investigator Eric Short (01:24:57):
21, sir.
Lawyer (01:25:03):
Not when he was arrested, by the time that Paitin was killed, was he 19?
Investigator Eric Short (01:25:10):
Yes.
Lawyer (01:25:15):
Did you also review hospital video when Paitin was brought to the hospital?
Investigator Eric Short (01:25:22):
I did.
Lawyer (01:25:25):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:25:26):
You may.
Lawyer (01:25:35):
And again, you've been in this courtroom for the last two weeks?
Investigator Eric Short (01:25:41):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:25:42):
And a certain portion of that hospital video was played previously, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:25:47):
Yes, sir.
Lawyer (01:25:48):
Permission to republish State's Exhibit 1, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:25:51):
You may.
Lawyer (01:25:52):
And this time, Judge, we're playing the second clip of the submitted State's Exhibit 1.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:25:58):
All right. Thank you.
Lawyer (01:27:13):
Judge, for the record, I am playing... It's the clip three on the disc. It's labeled 11/13/ 2017, 3:44:15 AM. It's clip 002, and it's 13 minutes and 40 seconds.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:27:39):
All right. Thank you.
Lawyer (01:27:55):
Judge, there is no volume in this particular clip.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:27:58):
All right. Thank you.
Lawyer (01:41:39):
Judge, that concludes the second clip, 13:40 minutes long, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:41:55):
Maybe a good time for a break.
Your Honor (01:41:57):
Members of the jury, we're going to go ahead and take our mid- morning break. Go ahead and close up your notebooks. Remember, do not have any conversations amongst yourselves. Do not discuss this case with anybody else. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Do not conduct any independent investigation or inquiry, and do not post online on any social media sites. We'll excuse you for about 15 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 4 (01:42:27):
[inaudible 01:42:27], Your Honor. Make sure you leave your closed notebooks in your chair [inaudible 01:42:28] back this way, please.
Speaker 5 (01:43:00):
The jurors left the courtroom.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:43:01):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. Sir, you may step down from the witness stand. Is there anything we need to discuss on behalf of the defense, Mr. Britt?
Mr. Britt (01:43:13):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:43:13):
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith (01:43:14):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:43:15):
We'll be at ease for the next 15 minutes.
Speaker 3 (01:43:17):
Call BDs for 15 minutes.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:57:51):
All right, we're back on the record. Sir, if you want to retake your spot at the witness stand please.
Bailiff (01:58:00):
Watch your step.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:58:12):
All right. Is there anything that we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Lawyer (01:58:17):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:58:17):
On behalf of the defense?
Luther Johnson Britt (01:58:19):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:58:19):
Let's bring our jury in.
Bailiff (01:58:20):
Bring in the jury. Jury seated, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (01:59:11):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. Mr. Smith, you may continue.
Lawyer (01:59:17):
Thank you, Your Honor. Investigator Short, during the course of your review of this case file conducted by Detective Leatherwood in your own investigation, was a dog leash ever found?
Investigator Eric Short (01:59:35):
Not to my knowledge.
Lawyer (01:59:36):
Or seen at the scene on on November 13th, 2017?
Investigator Eric Short (01:59:42):
No.
Lawyer (01:59:46):
You said pretty early on in your testimony that one thing that you did was get a court order for DSS records. Is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (01:59:57):
Correct.
Lawyer (01:59:58):
And did you find that there was any DSS involvement with Paitin while at 104 Blackwater Drive?
Investigator Eric Short (02:00:07):
No. Prior to this incident, I didn't see any record from DSS or sheriff's office records that would reflect any type of abuse or any type of engagement with the Hunt family at their residence at 104.
Lawyer (02:00:25):
So you came into this investigation re-looking at Detective Leatherwood's investigation and all the investigators that conducted it back in 2017, also continued doing your investigative work on it, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:00:42):
Correct.
Lawyer (02:00:49):
Who did you determine was in the house the night of November 12th, 2017 over into November 13th, 2017?
Investigator Eric Short (02:00:58):
David and Dale were the only two males present, then Lisa and Savannah and Paitin.
Lawyer (02:01:04):
All right. And you've heard testimony from both Bode and Bode Technology and the state crime lab talking about the clitoral [inaudible 02:01:18]?
Investigator Eric Short (02:01:17):
Correct.
Lawyer (02:01:18):
And that there was a small amount of male DNA in the clitoral hood that cannot be quantified due to the load threshold?
Investigator Eric Short (02:01:27):
Correct.
Lawyer (02:01:29):
How was it then that you were, or did you eliminate Dale as a suspect?
Investigator Eric Short (02:01:36):
I didn't find Dale's DNA on anything that was consistent with the ligature that matches Paitin Fields' neck, the ligature that you see on the latent ligature. Dale's in the bed with Lisa. It's reflected all throughout this case file. There's no evidence to refute that. The main thing, like I said, their DNA is not on anything together. And you go back to the earbuds, we can't bend the facts of this case to fit. We have to take the physical evidence and let it support the facts. In my opinion, sir, the earbuds is consistent with the ligature on her neck and it's also-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:02:24):
Objection, nonresponsive to the question.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:02:26):
Go ahead and ask a new question.
Lawyer (02:02:33):
All right. Where were those earbuds found?
Investigator Eric Short (02:02:36):
Right beside the bed that was used, that David Prevatte was sleeping in.
Lawyer (02:02:40):
Did that go into your analysis of whether or not Dale was involved?
Investigator Eric Short (02:02:48):
Yes.
Lawyer (02:02:50):
Anything else go into your analysis of whether or not Dale was involved?
Investigator Eric Short (02:02:55):
Paitin and Savannah both had resided at that residence for 2 to 3 years prior to Mr. Prevatte's on the November the 13th incident. And again, there was no DSS reports, no sheriff's office reports or nothing to reflect any type of response from ...
Lawyer (02:03:15):
I don't have any further questions at this time.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:03:38):
Cross examination?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:03:59):
Mr. Short, let's start with the last question that you answered. You said in the two to three ... Paitin and Savannah had been living there 2 to 3 years prior to November of 2017. Is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:04:14):
That's my understanding. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:04:16):
David Prevatte had been living there during that same period of time, hadn't he?
Investigator Eric Short (02:04:21):
This case file reflects, sir, that pertaining to this incident, he had been back inside the residence I think two or three days is my understanding.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:04:28):
So you're not aware that he was in high school during the two or three years prior?
Investigator Eric Short (02:04:35):
Yes, sir. I did see school records.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:04:38):
You're also aware that people were interviewed throughout this investigation that placed David at the residence at various times throughout his life?
Investigator Eric Short (02:04:50):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:04:51):
Paitin and Savannah were there as a result of Lisa having custody of her two granddaughters. Is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:05:03):
That's my understanding.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:05:05):
Laura Fields is Paitin and Savannah's mother?
Investigator Eric Short (02:05:11):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:05:28):
You said earlier that Dale was in the house, but was in the bed with Lisa the entire time.
Investigator Eric Short (02:05:44):
Based on Mr. Johnson, the interviews that I have reviewed, that was consistent with them both being in the bed, basically witnessing each other. "Dale was asleep, I was away," vice versa.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:05:57):
Did you review any interviews with Lisa Hunt?
Investigator Eric Short (02:06:03):
I did, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:06:04):
And did Lisa Hunt, in that interview that you reviewed, state that Dale had gotten up and gone to the bathroom and had wakened her, and that when she woke up, that Paitin was in the bed asleep with them?
Investigator Eric Short (02:06:27):
It's my understanding, sir, and I can't recall. So when Savannah come into the room to say, "Hey, Papa, there's something wrong with Paitin," if he went to go use the restroom at that time or if he'd come back after he told her to go back to the living room to go to sleep, if he got up and used the restroom.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:06:46):
Well, in Savannah's interview, in her testimony here, she said that she went into the bedroom and said something was happening, funny was happening with Paitin and that she was told to go back and get in bed.
Investigator Eric Short (02:07:01):
That's correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:07:02):
She didn't say anything from the witness stand or in her interview that Dale had gotten up and gone to the restroom.
Investigator Eric Short (02:07:11):
I don't recall Savannah saying anything about it. No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:07:17):
And the interview that you did with Lisa, Lisa said that when she was awakened, when Dale came back into the room, that she took Paitin into the living room-
Lawyer (02:07:32):
Objection-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:07:33):
And put her on ...
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:07:33):
Hold on. Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:07:42):
You interviewed Lisa Hunt's interview?
Investigator Eric Short (02:07:46):
I reviewed Lisa Hunt's interviews, yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:07:50):
And did you take into consideration when making your decisions in this case?
Investigator Eric Short (02:07:58):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:08:03):
Do you recall Savannah's testimony of where she and Paitin were positioned on the sofa?
Investigator Eric Short (02:08:11):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:08:13):
Do you recall where Savannah said in her interview where Paitin was located?
Investigator Eric Short (02:08:22):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:08:24):
And you recall her testimony in this courtroom as to where she said Paitin was located?
Investigator Eric Short (02:08:29):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:08:30):
You actually saw the photograph that she marked?
Investigator Eric Short (02:08:33):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:08:35):
Did you prepare a report or synopsis involving various facts in this case as you believe them to be?
Investigator Eric Short (02:08:43):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:08:44):
You related it as pertinent evidence?
Investigator Eric Short (02:08:51):
Probably so, sir. I've documented so much with this.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:08:54):
And do you recall in one of your memos that you included the same photograph that Savannah marked here in the courtroom as their positions?
Investigator Eric Short (02:09:17):
I think ... Can you tell me what page, sir?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:10:34):
I'd actually have to find the exhibit. Hold on.
(02:10:34)
I'll come back to that. You were present when Savannah was interviewed the third time in Carousel?
Investigator Eric Short (02:10:45):
Yes, sir. I was on the Zoom meeting.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:10:46):
Were you prompting the ... Is it Ms. Oser? Ms. Oser that was conducting the interview?
Investigator Eric Short (02:11:03):
Yes, she was doing the interview.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:11:05):
Were you prompting her with questions?
Investigator Eric Short (02:11:07):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:11:08):
Did you make any suggestions to her during the course of that interview?
Investigator Eric Short (02:11:13):
No, sir. And to be honest, Mr. Johnson, I don't think that I had a conversation with her at all. Detective Steve Clinard, my partner, dealt with the Carousel Center daily. He dealt with hands-on offenses where I typically dealt with the ICAC cases, and Detective Clinard would coordinate and schedule that meeting as I was unfamiliar with the process.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:11:32):
Did you take any notes during the interview?
Investigator Eric Short (02:11:34):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:11:37):
Was Detective Clinard present as well?
Investigator Eric Short (02:11:40):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:11:50):
You testified that you wanted to have Savannah interviewed a third time prior to making an arrest?
Investigator Eric Short (02:11:59):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:12:01):
And that she had COVID and her January interview had to be canceled, and then she was not interviewed until after David had been arrested.
Investigator Eric Short (02:12:11):
That's correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:12:21):
After David was arrested in Louisiana and brought back to North Carolina, did you have any conversation with Dale or Lisa Hunt?
Investigator Eric Short (02:12:35):
So I did interview Mr. Dale Hunt with an attorney here in [inaudible 02:12:40] on February the 2nd, 2022. So that was two days prior to his arrest. I'm sorry.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:12:52):
Did you ever notify the Hunts that David had been arrested?
Investigator Eric Short (02:12:56):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:12:57):
Did you notify Robert Fields?
Investigator Eric Short (02:13:01):
Not unless his sister did.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:13:04):
And his sister was Marie?
Investigator Eric Short (02:13:06):
Yes, sir-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:13:06):
Did you notify her?
Investigator Eric Short (02:13:07):
Yes, I did.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:13:08):
When did you notify her?
Investigator Eric Short (02:13:10):
I'm pretty sure the day that we took him into custody, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:13:14):
So did you call her from Louisiana?
Investigator Eric Short (02:13:17):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:13:20):
Did you ever interview Marie regarding her conversations with Savannah?
Investigator Eric Short (02:13:30):
I did ask several times during the course of my investigation if-
Lawyer (02:13:36):
Objection. It's going to be hearsay, Judge.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:13:41):
Did you ever-
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:13:41):
Overruled. Hold on. Overruled.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:13:41):
You may answer.
Investigator Eric Short (02:13:46):
So I did ask, I think, two or three times about if Jane and her family had conversation with Savannah, and Jane always reported back to me that no, that they basically didn't talk about the incident. I think there was two times that comments were made, but that was it.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:14:05):
When were those two times that comments were made?
Lawyer (02:14:09):
Objection, Judge. Hearsay.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:14:12):
Overruled.
Investigator Eric Short (02:14:18):
February the 5th, 2022 was one of those times Jane advised me that-
Lawyer (02:14:22):
Objection, hearsay.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:14:24):
Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:14:26):
So there was a conversation between Marie and Savannah on February the 5th?
Investigator Eric Short (02:14:40):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:14:41):
Is that your information?
Investigator Eric Short (02:14:42):
Say what now?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:14:43):
Is that your information?
Investigator Eric Short (02:14:47):
You want me to advise you-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:14:48):
Yes or no?
Investigator Eric Short (02:14:48):
Yes, there was a conversation.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:14:50):
And that was the day following David's arrest?
Investigator Eric Short (02:14:57):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:14:58):
It's the same day that you called Marie to tell her that David had been arrested?
Investigator Eric Short (02:15:03):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:15:23):
When was the other conversation?
Investigator Eric Short (02:15:27):
Give me one second.
(02:15:28)
Sir, I can't find that date right here in front of me. I can grab my computer if you would like to ...
Luther Johnson Britt (02:16:08):
If it's available, yes. Your Honor, can he step down?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:16:12):
All right sir, you may step down.
Investigator Eric Short (02:16:13):
Let me check one more thing.
(02:16:28)
Can I grab my computer, Your Honor?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:16:28):
You may.
Investigator Eric Short (02:17:44):
Your Honor, this is dead, so I'm going to grab the charger if that's okay.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (02:17:47):
That's fine.
Investigator Eric Short (02:19:50):
Mr. Britt? Yep. Are you ready?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:19:54):
Yes, sir.
Investigator Eric Short (02:19:55):
November the 18th, 2020 was a conversation that Jane had advised me she had with Savannah about ...
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:01):
... she had with Savannah regarding Mr. Prevatte.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:07):
November?
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:09):
The 18th, 2020.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:11):
So two years prior to the arrest?
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:13):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:18):
You don't know what she said at that point in time?
Speaker 6 (02:20:21):
Objection.
Judge (02:20:23):
Overruled.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:24):
Yes or no?
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:26):
[inaudible 02:20:27] told me what she said. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:28):
Savannah told you or Marie told you?
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:32):
Marie told me what Savannah said.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:36):
On November the 18th, 2020?
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:39):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:41):
But yet Savannah wasn't interviewed at Carousel for the third time until February of 2022?
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:51):
If that's correct, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:20:52):
Correct? February the 18th is the date you used earlier.
Investigator Eric Short (02:20:56):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:21:04):
And in your review of Detective Leatherwood's investigative file, he had never attempted to interview Savannah?
Investigator Eric Short (02:21:17):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:21:19):
Each time, the two times while Detective Leatherwood was the investigator, she'd been interviewed twice at the Carousel clinic?
Investigator Eric Short (02:21:30):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:21:30):
And we saw those videos in the courtroom.
Investigator Eric Short (02:21:35):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:21:41):
And do you know when Marie obtained custody of Savannah?
Investigator Eric Short (02:21:51):
I think, sir, it was in July of that year. Hang on one second.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:21:55):
July of which year? 2017?
Investigator Eric Short (02:22:08):
No, sir. July 26th, 2019, I think is what paperwork reflects.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:22:21):
And Marie doesn't live here in Pender County, does she?
Investigator Eric Short (02:22:24):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:22:25):
She lives over in Columbus or Bladen County?
Investigator Eric Short (02:22:28):
Columbus, I think.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:22:33):
And were you in touch with her on a pretty consistent basis once she started, once you took over the investigation?
Investigator Eric Short (02:22:41):
Yes, sir. She's the only one that called about status updates with this case.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:22:49):
Marie was adamant about David being the perpetrator, wasn't she?
Investigator Eric Short (02:22:58):
I don't know, sir, if I completely agree with that, because we didn't ever ... When I first got involved in this case, basically she was calling wanting updates on the investigation. But to my knowledge, I don't ever recall a conversation where she was saying that he did it or anything such as that.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:23:20):
Were you present when Savannah was in this courtroom prior to trial being asked questions by the prosecutors?
Investigator Eric Short (02:23:30):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:23:31):
Marie was present during the course of that?
Investigator Eric Short (02:23:34):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:23:35):
Marie had to be asked to leave the courtroom, didn't she?
Investigator Eric Short (02:23:37):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:23:39):
Was Savannah looking to Marie for guidance?
Investigator Eric Short (02:23:43):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:23:44):
Support?
Investigator Eric Short (02:23:45):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:23:47):
Then why did Marie have to leave the courtroom?
Investigator Eric Short (02:23:48):
I asked Marie to come into the back, back in the jury room so that we could make sure ... Children oftentimes, when we're prepping them for cases, will get emotional when their family member goes out of the door to the court. So we did that for a trial prep strategy, not to try to ... There was no coaching or anything like that.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:11):
Did Savannah sit on the witness stand?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:12):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:14):
And was she asked questions while the lawyers were at the table?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:16):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:18):
Where were you positioned?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:20):
Sitting in your chair, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:22):
And where was Marie positioned?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:24):
Out where about Detective Leatherwood is sitting.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:28):
And while Savannah was on the stand testifying, you were focused on her?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:35):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:36):
Prosecutors were focused on her. No one was really paying attention to Marie, were they?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:45):
I mean, we were all sitting here together, sir. I didn't see any communication or anything.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:49):
I mean, did you turn around and look at her?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:51):
At times, yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:52):
While Savannah was on the stand?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:55):
At times, yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:24:56):
What prompted you to turn around and look at Marie?
Investigator Eric Short (02:24:59):
I cannot recall an exact ...
Luther Johnson Britt (02:25:01):
Was it the way Savannah was acting on the stand?
Investigator Eric Short (02:25:06):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:25:06):
Was it the way she was hesitating to answer questions?
Investigator Eric Short (02:25:12):
This was the second meeting we had. Savannah did not hesitate to answer questions, to my knowledge, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:25:19):
Then why was it necessary to take Marie into the back, to the jury room, if Savannah wasn't seeking her guidance, her approval of what she was saying?
Investigator Eric Short (02:25:29):
Again, sir, to make sure that Savannah sitting in this courtroom alone could not become emotional when ... The separation there, this is a big gap just between that wall there, especially at 16 years old with issues.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:25:49):
So how long did you and Marie stay in the jury room?
Investigator Eric Short (02:25:55):
Maybe 10 minutes, max.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:25:58):
And were questions being asked of Savannah in your absence, or do you know?
Investigator Eric Short (02:26:02):
I'm sure they continued on. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:26:04):
But you're only aware of two conversations that Marie had with Savannah between July, when she became her custodian, and November the 18th of 2020 and February the 5th of 2022?
Investigator Eric Short (02:26:35):
That sounds correct, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:26:38):
Was Marie present when Savannah was interviewed each time at the Carousel clinic?
Investigator Eric Short (02:26:47):
I can't recall, Mr. Johnson, because prior to that, I don't know if I glanced at the records, like who was in attendance, who carried her or whatever. In my time, I don't think that she ... I know during the interview she was not present, but either her or her husband had to transport her to the Carousel interview.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:27:08):
Well, doesn't Mr. Fields, Robert Fields, have some disability?
Investigator Eric Short (02:27:20):
I think so. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:27:21):
Did he attend the pretrial practice session?
Investigator Eric Short (02:27:26):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:27:26):
Have you ever interviewed him?
Investigator Eric Short (02:27:30):
I did obtain his DNA standard, and I think I spoke with him as well, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:27:39):
Where did that take place? Here in Pender County?
Investigator Eric Short (02:27:41):
At the Pender County Sheriff's Office.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:27:53):
There was a stark contrast in what Savannah said at the Carousel clinic the first time she was interviewed, and the second time she was interviewed, and the third time she was interviewed. Is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:10):
You mean by first time-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:11):
First time-
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:12):
... being avoidant?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:12):
... first time that she was interviewed at the Carousel clinic, she said she didn't want to talk about it.
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:12):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:13):
Second time she was interviewed at Carousel clinic, she said the same thing.
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:24):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:25):
She didn't want to talk about it. And so in the third time, after David has been arrested, and after you have contacted Marie to tell her that David was arrested, Savannah's story changes.
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:44):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:46):
She didn't say she ever saw David do anything to Paitin. Did she?
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:52):
That's correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:52):
Did she?
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:54):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:55):
She said she saw him standing there.
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:57):
Mm-hmm.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:28:58):
He was wearing-
Judge (02:28:58):
Sorry, is that a yes?
Investigator Eric Short (02:28:58):
Yes. I'm sorry.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:29:01):
He was wearing a T-shirt and shorts?
Investigator Eric Short (02:29:05):
I think she said blue shorts, to be exact.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:29:09):
And that he was standing there and then he walked to his room?
Investigator Eric Short (02:29:13):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:29:17):
And at that point, had she already gotten up? She was already awake, according to her testimony.
Investigator Eric Short (02:29:25):
Based on the interview, Mr. Johnson, I think what she's trying to say there and what I interpret from that is that's what woke her up, was Mr. Prevatte standing over by Paitin's end of the couch. And then as he departed going back to the room, I think she gets up to go get Dale.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:29:41):
She didn't say she heard any noise that woke her up?
Investigator Eric Short (02:29:46):
Not that I recall.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:29:47):
She didn't say the television was on at that point, did she?
Investigator Eric Short (02:29:52):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:29:52):
There wasn't a light turned on?
Investigator Eric Short (02:29:54):
I think the kitchen light was on.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:29:57):
And the kitchen light ... The kitchen is in a room that's blocked by two walls, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:30:03):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:30:05):
And this is the light that's on the stove?
Investigator Eric Short (02:30:10):
I don't recall, Mr. Johnson, if there was a light on the stove or if they had a overhead light.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:30:16):
And did you ever go back to this residence to see how light it might have been in the den with just the kitchen light on?
Investigator Eric Short (02:30:27):
Me personally, sir? No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:30:30):
Did Detective Leatherwood?
Investigator Eric Short (02:30:32):
Not that I recall.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:30:48):
You said you came into this case with an open mind, that you had not identified anyone as the perpetrator. Do you remember testifying to that?
Investigator Eric Short (02:31:00):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:31:02):
But Detective Leatherwood's entire investigation focused on only one person, didn't it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:31:10):
So he collected DNA standards that would have ruled out everyone, so I disagree with that statement, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:31:19):
He focused on David.
Investigator Eric Short (02:31:22):
By the time that I had received this investigation for review, the focus on the investigation was David, but still I had to exclude Mr. Dale out as well, as we had a male DNA profile.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:31:40):
But you have a male DNA profile on David as well?
Investigator Eric Short (02:31:46):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:31:47):
David's DNA doesn't show up in any testing that was done, does it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:31:54):
Say that again, Mr.-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:31:55):
With the exception of one thing. David's DNA doesn't show up on the vaginal swabs, the clitoral hood swab, the rectal swab.
Investigator Eric Short (02:32:09):
No, sir. It does not.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:32:15):
The orange earbuds, when you say you looked at a photograph and you enhanced it, or you had it enhanced?
Investigator Eric Short (02:32:34):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:32:36):
Did you do it, or someone else do it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:32:37):
I had done it in the beginning, and then one of the other investigators had reached out to New Hanover County Sheriff's Office and had them to enhance the images.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:32:51):
You sent that photograph eventually to Dr. Kelly?
Investigator Eric Short (02:32:55):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:32:56):
Dr. Kelly, when she first did the autopsy, was of the opinion that this ligature had been a belt?
Investigator Eric Short (02:33:07):
Her verbal report to law enforcement was that it was a belt.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:33:15):
You said that David had given Haley his belt, and David had her belt.
Investigator Eric Short (02:33:22):
That was my understanding. The belt she had was white, and the case file reflects she couldn't wear white to Taco Bell, to work.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:33:30):
So where was the second belt? Did Detective Leatherwood ever recover it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:33:36):
I don't recall, but just one belt, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:33:42):
And the belt that you recovered that's supposedly David's, that's what's in evidence?
Investigator Eric Short (02:33:51):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:33:55):
That's not the belt that Dr. Kelly photographed at the autopsy, is it? Do you recall there being a belt that was photographed in the file, that Dr. Kelly photographed?
Investigator Eric Short (02:34:15):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:34:17):
It's both basically the flat view and the side view?
Investigator Eric Short (02:34:21):
That was my photograph, sir. I've taken measurements, I'm pretty sure, of the belt.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:34:26):
That's not the belt that's in evidence though, is it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:34:28):
Yes, sir. It is.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:34:33):
Now, you had been emailing with Dr. Kelly as part of your follow-up?
Investigator Eric Short (02:34:39):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:34:39):
Do you recall emailing her and saying, "If you can say that this ligature is consistent with the marks, then we can make an arrest?"
Investigator Eric Short (02:34:55):
I don't remember quite wording like that. I do remember we had a phone conversation, and I give the measurements, and she'd reviewed the email of the earbuds and photographs that I submitted. I think her next response to me was, "What do you need from me?" The state requested, at the time I was working for Pender County Sheriff's Office, so they said, "Hey, we need a report." And basically that's what the correspondence was. Dr. Kelly said, "Hey, what do you need from me?" And I said, "Basically a report saying that you support my findings, or if you think it's another weapon, we can seek that."
Luther Johnson Britt (02:35:38):
So Dr. Kelly's words were, "What do you need from me?"
Investigator Eric Short (02:35:45):
Meaning, sir, "Do you need a report?" or what can I do to basically complete this conversation with her?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:35:53):
Well, you provided that answer by saying, "I need you to say that this is the ligature so I can make an arrest."
Investigator Eric Short (02:36:00):
I don't recall saying them exact words, sir, but I'd be glad to look that back up for you. Well, I don't know if I can find it in all this discovery, but I don't want you to think that I was trying to coach her along to agree with me just to make an arrest in this case.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:36:19):
But that was your whole purpose. Your whole purpose was to make an arrest, have fresh eyes, look at this case so an arrest could be made.
Investigator Eric Short (02:36:27):
That's correct, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:36:27):
Isn't that right?
Investigator Eric Short (02:36:27):
That's exactly right.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:36:32):
Is that the order you received, that this case needed to be closed with an arrest?
Investigator Eric Short (02:36:39):
The arrest in this case would only benefit the justice for Paitin. I don't know what ...
Luther Johnson Britt (02:36:46):
It didn't take this high profile case off of the unsolved list at the Pender County Sheriff's Department.
Investigator Eric Short (02:36:53):
It did take it off the list.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:36:55):
The arrest did?
Investigator Eric Short (02:36:56):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:36:59):
And at that point, in 2022, you already had the DNA reports, didn't you? You had the Bode report, you had the state crime lab reports.
Investigator Eric Short (02:37:23):
In what date did you say, sir?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:37:25):
When you made this arrest ...
Investigator Eric Short (02:37:27):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:37:28):
In 2022. When did you have your conversation with Dr. Kelly?
Investigator Eric Short (02:37:35):
Dr. Kelly agreed that the earbuds matched the ligature on January the 18th of 2022.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:37:42):
But you already had the DNA reports from the state crime lab and from Bode?
Investigator Eric Short (02:37:49):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:37:53):
And so the ligature, you're saying Dr. Kelly's identifying that as a possible ligature, or the ligature is what gave you probable cause to make an arrest?
Investigator Eric Short (02:38:14):
Dr. Kelly said this ligature is consistent with the ligature on Paitin Fields' neck, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:38:20):
That's if it's doubled, as you surmised.
Investigator Eric Short (02:38:25):
Well, I can say that single and double what the measurements are, I can just say that the latent impression on her neck is consistent with the earbuds, and, like I say, sir, consistent with the neck.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:38:40):
The earbud, when you're referring to the earbud, you're talking about the piece that fits in your ear and over your ear, or just the entire strain?
Investigator Eric Short (02:38:48):
The hook, sir, that hangs the earbud onto the outer ear.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:38:59):
Is it your recollection that the earbud, the hooks on the outer ear were swabbed for DNA?
Investigator Eric Short (02:39:05):
They did not swab them, based on what the lab says in the work product.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:39:09):
So even though this image that you had produced showed one of the earbuds that fits over your ear on the front of her throat, that wasn't swabbed?
Investigator Eric Short (02:39:31):
To my knowledge, no, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:39:32):
Did you ever resubmit it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:39:35):
No, sir. So after you have DNA on one item of evidence, so on this cord-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:39:42):
Did you ever resubmit it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:39:44):
No, sir. I did not.
Speaker 6 (02:39:49):
Judge, I would ask that he be allowed to explain his answer.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:39:52):
That's beyond the scope of the question.
Judge (02:39:55):
Agreed. You can ask follow-up questions during redirect.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:40:06):
You said the knots on the earbud strand were present when you observed them inside the evidence envelope?
Investigator Eric Short (02:40:18):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:40:20):
One was tight. Your description, one was tight, the other was loose?
Investigator Eric Short (02:40:26):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:40:43):
And the total length of that strand was approximately how long?
Investigator Eric Short (02:40:47):
52 inches, 52 and a half inches.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:40:55):
And out of that 52 inch length of cord, only 14 inches was swabbed, or was the entire strand swabbed?
Investigator Eric Short (02:41:10):
The lab circled, sir, on that, in their work product, what they swabbed. I don't know what they swabbed, other than it was on the cord itself. 14 inches was the stretched portion, or what appeared to be stretched of the conductor.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:41:33):
And it's your opinion that that stretching occurred during the time that ... This is the ligature that Paitin was strangled?
Investigator Eric Short (02:41:46):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:41:48):
Even though it would've been wrapped around her, by your calculations, it would've been wrapped around her throat twice.
Investigator Eric Short (02:41:58):
I don't think ... Sir, I don't want to be disrespectful, but I don't know if my opinion can apply. If you want my opinion, I can tell you what the investigation tells me.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:42:10):
Was the stretched portion portion wrapped around her throat?
Investigator Eric Short (02:42:14):
I'd say it had to be at some point in time. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:42:16):
It would not have been the portion that the person was holding in their hands?
Speaker 6 (02:42:28):
Objection, Judge. Calls for speculation.
Judge (02:42:30):
Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:42:30):
The... May I approach?
Judge (02:42:30):
You may.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:44:51):
Here we go. I'm going to ask you to hold that. And it's from the knot ... Well, actually, from the knot to the knot, it's in this portion that the material is stretched.
Speaker 6 (02:45:05):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:07):
And in the photograph that you enhanced ... You can drop it. In the photograph that you enhanced, it was one of these portions of the actual earbud itself that you saw on Paitin's neck?
Investigator Eric Short (02:45:29):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:31):
And the other cord was wrapped around it?
Speaker 6 (02:45:36):
Objection.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:36):
The portion-
Speaker 6 (02:45:36):
... Judge-
Judge (02:45:37):
Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:40):
Is it your opinion that one of these was pressed directly against her neck and made an impression?
Speaker 6 (02:45:49):
Objection, Judge. Calls for speculation.
Judge (02:45:50):
Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:50):
What's the number on the photograph?
Speaker 7 (02:45:50):
Which one, [inaudible 02:45:51]? Which one?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:50):
[inaudible 02:45:51].
Bailiff (02:45:50):
You talking about the autopsy?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:50):
Yeah, the autopsy photograph.
Bailiff (02:45:50):
80. 80 [inaudible 02:46:32].
Luther Johnson Britt (02:45:50):
Which one?
Bailiff (02:46:31):
80. It's a disc.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:46:35):
What number?
Bailiff (02:46:35):
80.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:46:35):
80? It's on the disc?
Bailiff (02:47:04):
Yes.
Judge (02:47:15):
So these are the autopsy photos, is that correct?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:47:17):
Just one.
Judge (02:47:18):
All right. This will not be on the broadcast. Thank you.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:47:19):
[inaudible 02:48:17].
Speaker 7 (02:47:19):
6624.
Bailiff (02:47:19):
6624.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:48:53):
6624? Detective, what's being shown on the television screen now is photograph 6624 from the autopsy.
Investigator Eric Short (02:48:59):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:48:59):
Do you recognize that?
Investigator Eric Short (02:49:01):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:49:01):
Is that the photograph that you used to enhance the image of Paitin's neck, or had someone do it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:49:10):
Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:49:15):
And the image that you focused on ... Do you see?
Investigator Eric Short (02:49:29):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:49:31):
[inaudible 02:49:32] this area that I'm drawing a circle around with my-
Investigator Eric Short (02:49:35):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:49:36):
And it was your belief, was it not, that that image was made by one of the two earbuds on the string?
Investigator Eric Short (02:49:48):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:49:52):
You can't tell us which one, though?
Investigator Eric Short (02:49:54):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:49:54):
All right. And is it your belief that the earbud itself was pressed against her skin?
Speaker 6 (02:50:03):
Objection, calls for speculation.
Judge (02:50:05):
Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:50:10):
The photographs that you had enhanced, do you have those with you?
Investigator Eric Short (02:50:28):
Sir, I might can find them, but I don't know how long it'll take. It's on my drive.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:50:33):
The enhancement process, were you present when that was done?
Investigator Eric Short (02:50:36):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:50:37):
Did you interview the officer that did it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:50:40):
No, sir. Again, one of the other part-time investigators at the sheriff's office had reached out to New Hanover to have that conducted.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:50:47):
I don't want to use [inaudible 02:50:51]. You said you looked at it on your computer?
Investigator Eric Short (02:50:52):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:50:53):
Before these were ever submitted to anyone for enhancement?
Investigator Eric Short (02:50:56):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:50:56):
Changing the light, tone, focusing in, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:51:01):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:51:03):
Did you believe that you could see where one of the earbuds appeared on her neck?
Speaker 6 (02:51:11):
Objection. Calls for speculation.
Judge (02:51:15):
Overruled.
Investigator Eric Short (02:51:17):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:51:20):
And part of it was, was it not, that in this image from the autopsy, and as you enhanced it, this became more defined, didn't it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:51:42):
I wouldn't necessarily say more defined. No, sir. You can see, it will clear up a little bit when you take ... Obviously, you can see this camera's almost over the midline of the body, as there's a bright white spot there. So when you change the color and contrast of that image, detail's present there that's otherwise being washed out by light.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:52:03):
Okay. But as you increased the focus, the detail became more apparent. Is that what you're saying?
Investigator Eric Short (02:52:11):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:52:13):
And eventually, you actually had a ... There was a photograph taken with the earbud on top of the photograph. Do you recall that?
Investigator Eric Short (02:52:26):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:52:28):
And one of the things that you were looking at as this detail became more evident, there appeared to be a small circle or hole in the image. Do you remember that?
Investigator Eric Short (02:52:43):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:52:44):
You don't remember the image?
Investigator Eric Short (02:52:48):
This particular image here, or are you talking about a side image?
Luther Johnson Britt (02:52:52):
Was there more than one image? Is there more than one image of the earbud portion on her neck?
Investigator Eric Short (02:53:03):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:53:05):
So there are two of these?
Investigator Eric Short (02:53:07):
Yes, sir.
Speaker 6 (02:53:07):
Objection, Judge. Calls for speculation.
Judge (02:53:11):
Overruled.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:53:12):
There are two of these?
Investigator Eric Short (02:53:13):
In my opinion, yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:53:15):
And one is where?
Investigator Eric Short (02:53:17):
On one side of her neck, and then in the midline.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:53:20):
The midline being midline of the body?
Investigator Eric Short (02:53:23):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:53:26):
And this is the midline photograph, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:53:27):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:53:31):
Is that the one that was enhanced, or was it a different one? Or were they both?
Investigator Eric Short (02:53:36):
I can't recall, sir, which images were enhanced by New Hanover County.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:53:41):
You did not think that the image as the detail came out depicted one of the tips of the ear portion visible on her neck?
Investigator Eric Short (02:54:09):
On the right-hand side, I would ... I mean, in my opinion, I didn't even consult this with Dr. Kelly, but in my opinion, it appears to be the center of the earbud portion, along with the same hook in place.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:54:22):
The hook and, you say the center of this portion?
Investigator Eric Short (02:54:25):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:54:26):
The one at which the noise, the sound is projected?
Investigator Eric Short (02:54:31):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:54:35):
And you said that there was another that has this hook as well?
Investigator Eric Short (02:54:43):
The only two that I noticed, sir, is this one you have on the screen. And like I say, in my opinion, only the right-hand side of the victim's neck.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:54:50):
Okay. And it's your impression that that was against her skin? Had to be, for it to be depicted the way it was?
Investigator Eric Short (02:55:01):
The plastic hook earpiece would-
Luther Johnson Britt (02:55:00):
The way it was.
Investigator Eric Short (02:55:01):
The plastic hook earpiece would've had to have been under the ligature to apply that mark into the skin.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:55:11):
So, for example, one of these earbuds would've been pressed against her neck and the cord wrapped around?
Jason William Smith (02:55:27):
Objection, calls for speculation.
Your Honor (02:55:30):
I think you already testified already to that fact.
Jason William Smith (02:55:33):
Yes, sir.
Investigator Eric Short (02:55:35):
Either wrapped. Answer, sir, or no?
Your Honor (02:55:38):
You may answer.
Investigator Eric Short (02:55:38):
Either wrapped around or applied front to back. In my opinion, I'd say front to back.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:55:47):
Front to back as in? Here to here? Front being the-
Investigator Eric Short (02:55:59):
I mean, so if you hold the ligature and apply pressure front to back with... My hands would be under your ear, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:56:08):
Front to back. There was a mark on the back of her neck, wasn't there?
Investigator Eric Short (02:56:14):
Yes, sir. An abrasion.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:57:25):
And the two, they're like rectangles along the strand of the cord, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (02:57:34):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:57:36):
They aren't present in any of this enhancement that you did?
Investigator Eric Short (02:57:40):
Not that I can see, sir, but it would depend on what side of the ligature they ended up on. If they were skin surface down, I would expect to see results in the skin tissue. If it was riding on top of a double cord, I would not expect to see them.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:57:54):
But you don't know?
Investigator Eric Short (02:57:55):
Don't have a clue, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:58:17):
Other items that were seized out of the home were the charging cords?
Investigator Eric Short (02:58:31):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:58:33):
And they didn't really have any significant evidentiary value other than they were in the bedroom where David slept?
Investigator Eric Short (02:58:41):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:58:46):
Was the mattress ever cut to obtain any type of potential evidence?
Investigator Eric Short (02:58:55):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:58:59):
Was the cushion of the sofa ever cut to obtain any type of evidence?
Investigator Eric Short (02:59:09):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:59:10):
Were the cushions actually seized?
Investigator Eric Short (02:59:14):
To my knowledge, no, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:59:26):
Let me back up. The mattress in the bedroom where David was sleeping was never... There were no clippings or cuttings from it for purposes of submitting those as containing any significant evidence?
Investigator Eric Short (02:59:43):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:59:45):
The mattress in the other bedroom that was being remodeled, reworked, was anything ever taken from it?
Investigator Eric Short (02:59:55):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (02:59:56):
You were aware in your review that David's pants that he had on that night and any seen in at the ER, they were seized?
Investigator Eric Short (02:59:56):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:00:01):
You're aware that Paitin had urinated and defecated on him?
Investigator Eric Short (03:00:18):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:00:21):
On those very pants?
Investigator Eric Short (03:00:24):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:00:26):
You're aware that he was holding her in his arms when they were driving to the hospital?
Investigator Eric Short (03:00:32):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:00:46):
And you're aware that on the exterior of his pants, there's a mixture of DNA from Paitin and from David?
Investigator Eric Short (03:00:58):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:01:00):
That on his underwear, what would be the outside portion of his underwear, there was also a mixture of DNA?
Investigator Eric Short (03:01:11):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:01:11):
Paitin's and David's?
Jason William Smith (03:01:15):
Objection.
Your Honor (03:01:18):
Overruled. You may answer.
Investigator Eric Short (03:01:25):
Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:01:29):
Did you ever think it was possible that that mixture was a result of the urine, the defecation soaking through his pants?
Jason William Smith (03:01:38):
Objection, calls for speculation.
Your Honor (03:01:40):
Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:01:53):
How long did it take you to review his file?
Investigator Eric Short (03:01:59):
I continued to review his file, sir, well into 2020. I probably spent two years with this case.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:02:06):
So as you were reviewing it, were you creating like a checklist of things that needed to be done?
Investigator Eric Short (03:02:14):
Somewhat, sir. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:02:25):
And so in February of 2022, had that checklist been completed?
Investigator Eric Short (03:02:33):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:02:39):
When did you... I guess you learned that her underwear was discarded by the hospital once you began your review?
Investigator Eric Short (03:02:47):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:02:49):
Did you ever question anyone as to why there was never an attempt to recover Paitin's underwear?
Investigator Eric Short (03:02:56):
I did speak with the investigators during this, sir, and they tried to... Our office or the sheriff's office attempted to call the hospital. By the time that call was made, the underwear were long gone based on what witnesses work in the case have provided.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:03:11):
When you say they, do you know a date?
Investigator Eric Short (03:03:13):
No, sir. I don't.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:03:14):
Was it the next day? Was it a week? Was it a month?
Investigator Eric Short (03:03:19):
I have no clue, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:03:21):
Did the officers that responded to the hospital that morning ever inquire about any clothing that she had on? In your review, did you see that?
Investigator Eric Short (03:03:33):
I think Detective Leatherwood learned when he was at New Hanover campus that the underwear had been discarded at Pender. In other words, the patient went on to New Hanover, but the underwear stayed behind at Pender and were discarded.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:03:47):
And no one was sent to retrieve it?
Investigator Eric Short (03:03:52):
Again, sir, based on what I learned in the investigation, we don't have the underwear, so nobody retrieved the underwear.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:03:57):
The underwear would've been vital in this case, wouldn't it?
Investigator Eric Short (03:04:02):
I would not turn them down, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:04:05):
I mean, wouldn't the underwear have possibly held evidence that it may have contained semen?
Investigator Eric Short (03:04:13):
Yes, sir. But it's also possible the feces had damaged what DNA evidence was there. Again, we would love to have them today before we test every which way we had to test, but we don't have them.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:04:26):
How would the feces have damaged the evidence when feces can contain DNA?
Investigator Eric Short (03:04:36):
Maybe I said that wrong. I don't mean damage the DNA, but I have had cases, sir, previously where feces were involved and our lab would not process the evidence. I don't know if they would in this case or not. I would've certainly tried if we had them, and I certainly would've loved to have them.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:04:53):
Well, you knew from Detective Leatherwood's investigation, Paitin was sleeping in her underwear.
Investigator Eric Short (03:05:03):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:05:04):
That's what she had on. Started off with a nightgown in her underwear and eventually the nightgown was removed either by her or someone, but was her nightgown ever found? Did you see it among the items that had been collected?
Investigator Eric Short (03:05:21):
Based on the interviews that I've read in this case, Paitin slept in her underwear that night. I don't recall a nightgown, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:05:31):
Well, you were present when Lisa Hunt testified the week before last, weren't you?
Investigator Eric Short (03:05:35):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:05:38):
And she said that Paitin and Savannah would sleep in a nightgown in their underwear sometimes the next morning, they wouldn't have the nightgowns on them?
Investigator Eric Short (03:05:46):
Maybe, sir. I'm not real clear on that.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:05:55):
You were asked if you ever saw a dog leash in the house?
Investigator Eric Short (03:05:59):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:06:00):
Or was one ever noted in the report?
Investigator Eric Short (03:06:06):
No, a dog leash was noted.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:06:07):
But to your knowledge, there were three dogs in that house?
Investigator Eric Short (03:06:10):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:06:16):
But no one looked for a dog leash?
Investigator Eric Short (03:06:23):
There was not a dog leash in evidence. No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:06:25):
Did you see Detective Leatherwood's interview with Lisa Hunt that she said-
Jason William Smith (03:06:33):
Objection, Judge.
Your Honor (03:06:36):
Sustained.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:06:40):
Is there any notation of a dog leash in the file?
Jason William Smith (03:06:46):
Objection.
Your Honor (03:06:48):
Overruled.
Investigator Eric Short (03:06:49):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:06:57):
But one was never recovered?
Investigator Eric Short (03:07:00):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:07:00):
How many searches were done at this house?
Investigator Eric Short (03:07:04):
Total of two, I think, search warrants, and I think they went back a couple of times on consent.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:07:11):
So are you saying there were at least four?
Investigator Eric Short (03:07:14):
I know of a right off about three. I'm sure they went back more, sir. I cannot...
Luther Johnson Britt (03:07:25):
Did you go back and re-interview every single person?
Investigator Eric Short (03:07:29):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:07:30):
You didn't believe that was necessary?
Investigator Eric Short (03:07:33):
In my opinion, sir, especially with the immediate family, they didn't believe the medical legal investigation that occurred, that doctors tried to conversate with them nor law enforcement.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:07:42):
Did you say that they didn't believe it? Did you ask for an explanation?
Your Honor (03:07:47):
Mr. Britt, I'm going to ask that while he's in the middle of a sentence-
Luther Johnson Britt (03:07:51):
I apologize, Your Honor.
Your Honor (03:07:52):
Thank you. Go ahead.
Investigator Eric Short (03:07:54):
No, sir. So the interviews that I read, the family did not, and most of the people interviewed in this case that pertaining to that house at 104, did not believe that the rape occurred or a homicide occurred, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:08:10):
And you became aware in reviewing the autopsy report that Paitin had pneumonia?
Investigator Eric Short (03:08:21):
I think she documented pneumonia. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:08:27):
That Paitin had been sick prior to this?
Investigator Eric Short (03:08:35):
In the autopsy report, sir?
Luther Johnson Britt (03:08:37):
No, based upon Detective Leatherwood's investigation, and your review of that file.
Investigator Eric Short (03:08:42):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:08:45):
Review of that file indicated she had a cough?
Investigator Eric Short (03:08:50):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:08:51):
But she had not been running a fever?
Investigator Eric Short (03:08:54):
Maybe a low grade fever. I can't recall, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:08:58):
She had not been taken to the doctor at that point?
Investigator Eric Short (03:09:00):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:09:03):
In reviewing the file, did you become aware that the doctor's appointment had been made for the next day?
Investigator Eric Short (03:09:10):
I have heard that in this trial, sir, but I never found physical evidence to support that, no.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:09:18):
You reviewed the doctor's statements?
Investigator Eric Short (03:09:23):
Which doctor is that, sir?
Luther Johnson Britt (03:09:25):
The doctor at Pender?
Investigator Eric Short (03:09:28):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:09:29):
The doctor at New Hanover?
Investigator Eric Short (03:09:34):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:09:34):
And Paitin was described as being a very sick child?
Investigator Eric Short (03:09:39):
After the onset of this condition, very sick, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:10:12):
And in your review of Detective Leatherwood's report, his report, do you recall anything about Savannah having been punished that day?
Investigator Eric Short (03:10:32):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:11:06):
You don't know how the knots were tied into the earbuds?
Investigator Eric Short (03:11:12):
Prior to my examination, sir?
Luther Johnson Britt (03:11:14):
Right. Yes.
Investigator Eric Short (03:11:15):
No, I have no clue.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:11:33):
In Detective Leatherwood's investigation, the earbuds were found in David's bedroom?
Investigator Eric Short (03:11:45):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:11:46):
The same bedroom that the girls had been using prior to him moving back home two to three days earlier?
Investigator Eric Short (03:11:52):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:11:54):
And it's not noted how long they'd been at that location?
Investigator Eric Short (03:12:03):
How long the earbuds, sir?
Luther Johnson Britt (03:12:05):
The earbuds had been down on the floor beside the bed.
Investigator Eric Short (03:12:08):
They were on the table beside the bed, but I have no clue, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:12:11):
They were crumpled up, like balled up.
Investigator Eric Short (03:12:14):
They were laying beside the bed, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:12:16):
Was there any type of radio, CD player, an iPod, a telephone that was there by the bed that you plugged those into in the photographs that you saw?
Investigator Eric Short (03:12:38):
Not that I found, sir, or not that I documented in review of the case.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:12:42):
And there are none found throughout anywhere in the house?
Investigator Eric Short (03:12:46):
To my knowledge, sir, no.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:12:50):
Is it documented in Detective Leatherwood's report that Paitin actually played with that cord?
Investigator Eric Short (03:13:01):
I don't think we have a witness saying that. No, sir.
Your Honor (03:13:08):
Counsel can approach. Break for lunch at this time. Go ahead and close up your notebooks. As you are out at lunch, remember, do not discuss this case amongst yourselves. Do not discuss this case with anybody else, including friends, family members, or coworkers. Do not allow anyone else to discuss this case in your presence. Do not conduct any independent investigation or inquiry. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses, and do not post online on any social media sites regarding your experience or any of the evidence you've seen or heard. So we'll go ahead and excuse you until 2:00 p.m. Thank you.
Bailiff (03:14:19):
Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor (03:14:19):
Make sure you leave your closed notebooks in your chair. [inaudible 03:14:23]
Bailiff (03:14:19):
Jury's left the courtroom.
Your Honor (03:14:56):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. Sir, at this time, you may step down from the witness stand. Is there anything that we need to discuss on behalf of the defense?
Luther Johnson Britt (03:15:08):
No, sir.
Your Honor (03:15:08):
On behalf of the state?
Jason William Smith (03:15:10):
No, Your Honor.
Your Honor (03:15:11):
All right. We'll be in recess until 2:0 p.m.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:15:13):
May I inquire? Is there not a state witness here yet?
Speaker 8 (03:15:18):
She's landed in Wilmington.
Your Honor (03:15:20):
I've got an indication in the back that yes.
Jason William Smith (03:15:25):
She's here. Okay.
Luther Johnson Britt (03:15:25):
Okay. [inaudible 03:15:26]
Jason William Smith (03:15:26):
I think given how far we are into this witness's testimony, I think that it would just be best to conclude with this testimony and then move on to the other witness.
Your Honor (03:15:38):
Okay. All right. We'll be at ease until 2:00 p.m.
Bailiff (03:15:42):
Court will be at ease till 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. [inaudible 03:16:36]
Speaker 9 (03:30:00):
(silence)
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:35:03):
All right, we're back on the record. Is there anything we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Speaker 10 (04:35:11):
Nothing, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:35:12):
From the defense?
Luther Johnson Britt (04:35:14):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:35:14):
All right, sir, if you can please retake your seat at the witness stand, please. All right, let's bring our jury in.
Bailiff (04:35:31):
Bring in the jury. Jury is seated, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:36:11):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. All right, Mr. Britt, you may continue.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:36:27):
Thank You, Your Honor. Detective Short, in your review of Detective Leatherwood's case file, how many times was David Prevatte interviewed?
Investigator Eric Short (04:36:41):
Several times, sir. Over seven or eight times, I believe.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:36:44):
By detective Leatherwood?
Investigator Eric Short (04:36:48):
Yes, sir. Or others as well.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:36:50):
Or other investigators?
Investigator Eric Short (04:36:51):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:36:53):
Did you also attempt to interview him?
Investigator Eric Short (04:36:56):
I did. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:37:09):
You testified on direct that after a decision had been made to arrest David, that you attempted to locate him?
Investigator Eric Short (04:37:24):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:37:24):
You knew, did you not, that he was in Louisiana?
Investigator Eric Short (04:37:31):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:37:39):
You had not been keeping tracks of him?
Investigator Eric Short (04:37:40):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:37:41):
You were not keeping tracks of him if he left Pender County or left the state of North Carolina?
Investigator Eric Short (04:37:46):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:37:47):
Do you recall a time when you learned that he was in Kentucky?
Investigator Eric Short (04:37:55):
I do recall interviewing a female out there. Yes, sir. But I was way behind the [inaudible 04:38:03] officer.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:38:05):
And when you located him in Louisiana, you and another detective located him using a ploy on a Facebook page?
Investigator Eric Short (04:38:20):
So one of the investigators had-
Luther Johnson Britt (04:38:23):
That's a yes or no. Did you and another detective locate him in Louisiana by use of a Facebook page?
Investigator Eric Short (04:38:30):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:38:33):
The other detective was a man?
Investigator Eric Short (04:38:35):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:38:36):
He pretended to be a young girl?
Investigator Eric Short (04:38:39):
No, sir. That's incorrect. It was a female detective that communicated with David on Facebook.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:38:44):
And she communicated with David via a Facebook page of David Hunt, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:38:51):
That sounds correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:38:54):
And she pretended to have gone to school with him in Lumberton?
Investigator Eric Short (04:39:01):
Seems like so. Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:39:03):
And carried on a Facebook conversation with him about where he was, what he was doing there, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:39:13):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:39:14):
Sent a picture purportedly to be yourself?
Investigator Eric Short (04:39:20):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:39:21):
Or one more his age at the time?
Investigator Eric Short (04:39:25):
I can't recall-
Luther Johnson Britt (04:39:25):
Was it an actual picture of the detective or-
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:39:27):
Hold on. Mr. Britt, he was responding to the question. Go ahead and respond to that previous question.
Investigator Eric Short (04:39:32):
I can't recall if, and the image was transferred, but I can't recall if it was... It was not the picture of the female detective, obviously. It possibly could have been someone else.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:39:46):
And to try to gain his trust, she was asking other people to be friends on this webpage, on this Facebook page?
Investigator Eric Short (04:39:59):
Possibly, sir. I'm not real familiar with this part of the investigation, but-
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:00):
Sir, I'm not real familiar with this part of the investigation, but go ahead.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:05):
Well, this occurred while you had taken over the case, did it not?
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:10):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:11):
This was in 2022?
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:13):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:16):
And you discovered that David was working in Louisiana?
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:20):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:21):
He was doing storm cleanup work.
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:24):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:25):
Rebuilding houses. He was living there. Is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:29):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:30):
He actually was living in a trailer that he was paying rent for?
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:35):
I don't know about the rent, sir, but he was staying in a mobile home.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:42):
Let me ask you, did you contact the Louisiana Sheriff's Department where this parish is located?
Investigator Eric Short (04:40:53):
I did, sir, after we arrived there.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:40:57):
You did not arrange the day before he was arrested for him to be stopped by a deputy sheriff to determine if that was him?
Investigator Eric Short (04:41:06):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:41:10):
So you flew to Louisiana?
Investigator Eric Short (04:41:15):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:41:16):
You, who else?
Investigator Eric Short (04:41:18):
One more detective, Detective Steve Kleiner.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:41:21):
And did you take the SBI plane?
Investigator Eric Short (04:41:24):
No, sir. We flew commercial to Louisiana. Once we corroborated what we saw on Facebook and saw the vehicle there, the same vehicle, we didn't try to approach or make contact. Obviously, we were way out of our jurisdiction. We went to the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Office or Lafourche. I'm not sure how to pronounce that. And we contacted them, provided our warrant for arrest, and the major there sent investigators over and I think stopped him at the end of the driveway and took him into custody. I did fly back with the state SBI plane to transport him back to North Carolina days later.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:42:07):
So was the SBI plane in Louisiana when you arrived?
Investigator Eric Short (04:42:12):
No, sir. Days later, we went back after he waved extradition and picked him up with a state SBI plane.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:42:22):
Did you attempt to interview him at that point?
Investigator Eric Short (04:42:24):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:42:26):
He did not grant you an interview?
Investigator Eric Short (04:42:28):
No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:42:55):
And based upon your review of all of the interviews that David gave to Detective Leatherwood, to WECT, none of that information has been used against him thus far in this trial, have it?
Lawyer (04:43:22):
Objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:43:23):
Overruled.
Investigator Eric Short (04:43:26):
Ask me that one more time, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:43:29):
None of the information that David has given during the multiple interviews that he gave Detective Leatherwood to WECT has been used against him in this courtroom.
Lawyer (04:43:40):
Objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:43:41):
Overruled.
Bailiff (04:43:41):
May it be heard?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:43:42):
You may.
(04:43:44)
Members of the jury, go ahead and close up your notebooks. There's some considerations of law that I need to discuss with the attorneys. While you are out, do not discuss this case amongst yourselves. Do not discuss this case with anybody else. Do not have any contact with the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Do not conduct any independent investigation. Do not post on any social media sites. We'll go ahead and excuse you for a few minutes.
Bailiff (04:44:11):
Make sure you leave your closed notebooks in the chair. [inaudible 04:44:46], this way please.
(04:44:45)
The jury is escorted, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:44:47):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom.
(04:44:49)
Mr. Smith, your argument?
Lawyer (04:44:51):
Judge, I think it's twofold. Well, first of all, I'm objecting because I believe it's bordering, and I know that he hasn't said what did he say, but that would be self-serving hearsay. I still think if you phrase the question of what he said, was it used against him? Again, self-serving hearsay, Judge. Then-
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:45:14):
Which part is the hearsay part as far as, "Was it all used against him"?
Lawyer (04:45:24):
What he said globally as a generalization. What he said, " Is it being used against him?" That is what he said is self-serving hearsay. I know it's not specifics, but you're still getting around the self-serving hearsay by saying characterize what he said. And is it incriminating? Is it non-incriminating? You're asking him to characterize what he says. See what I'm saying? In general speak, Judge. And I think that that is practically saying, "Well, what he told you, did he tell you this? Did you use it against him? Did he tell you this? Did he use it against you?"
(04:46:13)
Now, you're just saying, well, everything that he's ever said in this case, interviews or whatever, are you using it against him? That's still self-serving hearsay. And then now you're asking him also to analyze what he said and say yay or nay on what he said. Are we going to go down each part now? Well, I'm using this against him. I'm using this against him. I mean, because he can answer the question with some of what he said used against him, yeah or no. It's a way to slide underneath the, what he [inaudible 04:47:01] because he knows that is self-serving hearsay. I still think, Judge, this generalization of, "Well, whatever he's told you are using against him?" It's still hearsay, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:47:12):
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Britt?
Luther Johnson Britt (04:47:14):
Your Honor, I've not asked him for any specific information that David has given him. We know that David didn't give him any information. We know that Detective Leatherwood interviewed David multiple times. Detective Leatherwood has testified, I don't know if they intend to recall him. But he's been interviewed over and over and over again, and none of what he has said has been presented in this courtroom. That's not hearsay. That's not hearsay. He actually, if you take him literally at his testimony, he reviewed this entire file for the better part of a year, year and a half, two years before David ever became quote unquote "the suspect." He had access to all those interviews. The state has had access to all those interviews. They gave it to me. I'm not asking, "On this occasion did David deny. On this occasion, he denied." I'm just asked, based upon all the statements that he's made, has any of this been used in court? That's not going into the substance of the statements, and it's not hearsay.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:48:34):
All right. Thanks, Mr. Britt. Mr. Smith?
Lawyer (04:48:36):
So Judge, he answers the question yes. For instance, one of the interviews he puts himself in the house, yes. So are we now opening the door to everything that comes in? No. We can choose to put in his statements or not put in, and we've elected not to. You can't backdoor them in through self-serving hearsay, Judge. And that's what he's trying to do.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:49:07):
All right. Thank you. In the exercise of my discretion, I do not find it to be hearsay. I think that it does skirt around the issue of being self-serving in the event that you want to question regarding specific things that he said.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:49:26):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:49:27):
Yes or no, I'm not going to allow that. The particular question was, any of the information he provided in interviews used against him. Witness has testified that he is not the primary investigator. Has had a court file that he's reviewed, reviewed substantial amounts of evidence, including interviews of the defendant, and whether or not it has been or has not been used against him in his conclusions for the determination for the arrest of Mr. Prevatte is a valid question that he can answer.
(04:50:04)
All right, let's go ahead and bring our jury back in.
Bailiff (04:50:06):
Bring the jury in.
(04:50:06)
Jury seated.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:51:33):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom.
(04:51:38)
Members of the jury, the objection is overruled.
(04:51:41)
Mr. Britt, if you can restate your question one more time.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:51:45):
Yes, sir.
(04:51:48)
Detective Short, you reviewed the case files as part of your job assignment, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:51:54):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:51:56):
There were multiple interviews that David gave to Detective Leatherwood, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:52:01):
Correct.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:52:02):
You attempted to interview him upon arresting him in Louisiana-
Investigator Eric Short (04:52:08):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:52:08):
... for taking him into custody in Louisiana?
Investigator Eric Short (04:52:12):
Yes, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:52:16):
None of what David said to Detective Leatherwood or to you has been presented in this courtroom [inaudible 04:52:25]-
Lawyer (04:52:24):
Objection.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:52:26):
Overruled.
Investigator Eric Short (04:52:29):
Did you say, none had been presented in this court?
Luther Johnson Britt (04:52:32):
That came out of his mouth.
Investigator Eric Short (04:52:36):
None of the actual interview has been played. No, sir.
Luther Johnson Britt (04:52:39):
All right. Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
Investigator Eric Short (04:52:42):
Redirect?
Lawyer (04:52:51):
You said that Savannah's aunt Marie, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:52:59):
I call her Jane Spalding, but it's Marie Jane or Jane Marie Spalding. It's the same female.
Lawyer (04:53:05):
You said she was the only person from the family to contact law enforcement asking the status in this case, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:11):
That's correct.
Lawyer (04:53:14):
Did you ever witness Jane or Marie coaching Savannah, coaching her what to say in court?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:24):
I did not.
Lawyer (04:53:25):
Or to investigators?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:27):
No.
Lawyer (04:53:32):
And Jane or Marie Spalding is also Paitin Fields' aunt, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:37):
That's correct.
Lawyer (04:53:38):
Who is Marie Spalding's brother?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:42):
Robert Fields.
Lawyer (04:53:45):
And who is that?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:46):
That's Paitin and Savannah's biological father.
Lawyer (04:53:51):
Does Marie have a husband?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:53):
Yes.
Lawyer (04:53:54):
What is his name?
Investigator Eric Short (04:53:55):
Robert Spalding.
Lawyer (04:53:57):
So her brother's name Robert, her husband's name Robert?
Investigator Eric Short (04:54:00):
Correct.
Lawyer (04:54:09):
Permission to publish State's Exhibit 80, autopsy photos?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (04:54:13):
You may. And for the broadcast, these photos will not be on the broadcast.
Lawyer (04:54:23):
In your cross-examination, Mr. Britt was talking to you about the red earbuds and potential latent marks that they made on Paitin.
Investigator Eric Short (04:54:39):
Correct.
Lawyer (04:54:39):
And he was talking to you about your belief that you have the earpiece, but then you have the actual earbud. Do you remember him talking to you about this?
Investigator Eric Short (04:54:54):
Yes.
Lawyer (04:54:55):
And that he walked you through photograph 6624, the autopsy photographs, that being State's Exhibit 80. Is that 6624 up on the screen?
Investigator Eric Short (04:55:41):
Yes.
Lawyer (04:55:42):
And he was talking to you about this mark on her neck.
Investigator Eric Short (04:55:49):
Correct.
Lawyer (04:55:50):
And he asked you, did you believe that the hook and the earbud made that mark. And I believe there was some confusion. You said you were talking about a different latent mark on Paitin's neck, is that correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:56:11):
Again, in my lay opinion as an investigator, matching the ligatures [inaudible 04:56:18] and seeing this photograph, this photograph here is consistent with the hook portion that goes around the ear of the earbuds that we see. There's another place on, I think, the right-hand side of her body. So I'm referring to this as the midline [inaudible 04:56:32] of this almost center mass of her body. On the right-hand side of her neck, you can see a similar appearance ligature. What, in my lay opinion, reflects is the piece that goes around the ear, and the center portion, appears to me, that that bruising is consistent with the same latent impression you see there in that literature.
Lawyer (04:56:54):
So I'm going to take you to same, State's Exhibit 80. I'm going to take you to photograph 6631. Do you see 6631?
Investigator Eric Short (04:57:13):
Yes.
Lawyer (04:57:13):
What does that appear to be?
Investigator Eric Short (04:57:15):
That's the injury or that Mr. Britt was referring to in my notes that I say is consistent with the same loop impression. And then you have a darker hemorrhage there that appears consistent with the center of the earbud.
Lawyer (04:57:28):
Can I have the witness step down, Judge?
Investigator Eric Short (04:57:30):
Yes, sir. You may step down.
Lawyer (04:57:31):
I'm going to have you stand to the side so you're not blocking anybody's view. Show the jury what you're talking about.
Investigator Eric Short (04:57:45):
So again, in my notes, the center portion of the earbud appears to have caused this hemorrhage that you see under the skin there. And then in an altered image where the contrast is changed, you can see the same loop surrounding this center portion of what I think is the centerpiece of the earbud.
Lawyer (04:58:11):
And that was your lay opinion, correct?
Investigator Eric Short (04:58:13):
Correct.
Lawyer (04:58:14):
You're not a forensic pathologist?
Investigator Eric Short (04:58:16):
Correct.
Lawyer (04:58:17):
All right. During this time, 2020... Well, '19 when you started Pender County Sheriff's Office, but in 2020, '21, '22, and until you left the Pender County Sheriff's Office, were you working multiple cases or just one case at a time?
Investigator Eric Short (04:58:46):
Multiple cases.
Lawyer (04:58:52):
And I'm going to go back to the dog leash. While you were the investigator from 2020 to now, was there any dog leash presented to you as coming from 104 Blackwater Drive?
Investigator Eric Short (04:59:12):
No.
Lawyer (04:59:13):
Do you know, based upon your review of the case and review of photographs, was there any dog leash found or notated as being seen in 104 Blackwater Drive?
Investigator Eric Short (04:59:29):
No.
Lawyer (04:59:30):
Or a collar?
Investigator Eric Short (04:59:32):
No.
Lawyer (04:59:37):
Now, I think you testified on cross-examination too, that... And I think it was during the questioning when Mr. Britt was going over what Dr. McGrath said that Paitin was very sick that day. And you made a statement during the course of your cross-examination that something to the effect of, " She was sick after this condition." What did you mean by that?
Investigator Eric Short (05:00:05):
So it appeared to me that after the onset of the strangulation and homicide, which had occurred at 104, and she was presented to Pender ER, he comes out and says, "Hey, we have a very sick child," is my understanding.
Lawyer (05:00:19):
But your testimony was, and I think Mr. Britt asked you, "Well, was she sick?"
Investigator Eric Short (05:00:26):
Sick, meaning with the traumatic or the trauma sustained from the sexual assault and ligature strangulation applied around the neck, not like a cold or call for pneumonia.
Lawyer (05:00:40):
All right. I don't have any further questions, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:00:44):
Recross?
Luther Johnson Britt (05:00:48):
So you're saying that when I asked you the question about the doctor saying she was a very sick child, you took that to mean that she had been strangled?
Investigator Eric Short (05:01:02):
Meaning, I think when Dr. McGrath come out and said, "Hey, we have a very sick child in the trauma bay," absolutely. That basically she's in a very poor condition, not that she had some type of cold or pneumonia, no, sir, I don't believe that.
Luther Johnson Britt (05:01:21):
And this was the same examination that led to the sexual assault trauma, nurses examining Paitin, and said that there was semen on the hood of her clitoris?
Lawyer (05:01:49):
Object. I don't believe that's what the testimony was, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:01:54):
I'll sustain the objection as far as it's outside the scope of redirect.
Luther Johnson Britt (05:02:01):
You took an intentional act as being, for the results of an intentional act and you describe it as a sickness. Is that what you're telling us?
Investigator Eric Short (05:02:16):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (05:02:19):
And do you commonly refer to an intentional act of violence as a sickness or an injury or an assault?
Investigator Eric Short (05:02:29):
Typically, in my experience, sir, standing in the ER trauma bay after a child has been sexually assaulted or something similar occurred, happened, typically ER doctors are not going to come out and disclose that information when they're unsure of who the offender are. So I can't speak for Dr. McGrath. I can just say, I've reviewed the medical records. I didn't find in the medical records whether that she was presented to Pender ER with pneumonia or any other general sickness. So taken out of context, I guess, reading what or understanding what he said, I would say he was referring to the illness that brought her to Pender Hospital in that trauma bay.
Luther Johnson Britt (05:03:19):
I don't have any other questions.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:03:20):
All right, sir. Thank you very much. At this time, you may step down. State, you may call your next witness.
Lawyer (05:03:39):
State would call Melinda Wilson to the stand.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:04:00):
All right, ma'am, if you can make your way around here to the witness stand, please.
Bailiff (05:04:08):
This way, please.
(05:04:08)
[inaudible 05:04:18]. Before you have a seat, if you can place your left hand on the Bible, raise your right hand.
Melinda Wilson (05:04:21):
Can I affirm?
Bailiff (05:04:21):
You may affirm.
Speaker 11 (05:04:23):
Raise your right hand. Do you affirm that the testimony you give in court today will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and this is your solid affirmation?
Melinda Wilson (05:04:30):
I do.
Speaker 11 (05:04:31):
Thank you.
Bailiff (05:04:31):
[inaudible 05:04:32].
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:04:31):
If you can get as close to that microphone as possible. It only picks you up if you're right over it.
Melinda Wilson (05:04:43):
Okay.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:04:44):
As you give your testimony, please make sure to speak loudly and clearly into the microphone so everybody here can hear you. Please make sure all of your answers are out loud. We can't have any head shakes or nods or mm-hmms. Everything has to be a yes or a no. And please make sure that you wait for the attorney to be done asking the question before you give a response. Can you do that?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:02):
Yes.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:05:03):
All right. Thank you.
(05:05:03)
State, you may proceed.
Lawyer (05:05:04):
Ms. Wilson, can you state and spell your name for the jury please?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:08):
Melinda Wilson, M-E-L-I-N-D-A W-I-L-S-O-N.
Lawyer (05:05:13):
And during 2017, were you employed with the State Crime Lab?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:18):
I was.
Lawyer (05:05:18):
And what was your job or duties at the crime lab at that time?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:22):
I was a forensic scientist in the biology section of the North Carolina State Crime Lab.
Lawyer (05:05:30):
Did you do DNA analysis?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:35):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:05:36):
Did you do body fluid analysis also at that time?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:39):
I don't remember if I did body fluid analysis at the time in 2017.
Lawyer (05:05:45):
At some point, did you leave the state crime lab?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:47):
I did.
Lawyer (05:05:48):
And what year was that?
Melinda Wilson (05:05:50):
2024.
Lawyer (05:05:51):
And from 2017 to 2020, what were your duties and responsibilities there?
Melinda Wilson (05:06:01):
I was a forensic scientist, like I said, in the biology section of the North Carolina State Crime Lab. So I would receive items of evidence and reference standards, reference standards being like a cheek swab from people thought to be involved in a case, tested for the presence of DNA and report my results and testify when necessary.
Lawyer (05:06:21):
And you stayed in the forensic biology section throughout your career at the State Crime Lab?
Melinda Wilson (05:06:24):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:06:25):
And when you left in 2024, did you move out of state?
Melinda Wilson (05:06:29):
I did.
Lawyer (05:06:30):
And did you stay within the laboratory field or lab?
Melinda Wilson (05:06:36):
Yes and no.
Lawyer (05:06:37):
All right. Explain just in general terms, do you work in a laboratory now?
Melinda Wilson (05:06:44):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:06:44):
All right. And you flew in this morning, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:06:49):
That's correct.
Lawyer (05:06:52):
So let me take you to your education and some of your training and experience. Did you go to school for either biology, chemistry, or something else?
Melinda Wilson (05:07:04):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:07:05):
And where did you go?
Melinda Wilson (05:07:06):
Where did I go to school?
Lawyer (05:07:07):
Yes, ma'am.
Melinda Wilson (05:07:07):
University of Florida and the University of South Florida.
Lawyer (05:07:10):
And what degrees did you get from University of Florida and South Florida?
Melinda Wilson (05:07:14):
I have a Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Science from University of South Florida, a Master's in Molecular Medicine from University of South Florida, and a second master's degree in forensic DNA and Serology from the University of Florida.
Lawyer (05:07:27):
Okay. And prior to joining the North Carolina State Crime Lab, were you employed with any other crime labs?
Melinda Wilson (05:07:34):
Yes. I was employed by the biochemistry section of the West Virginia State Police Crime Lab in roughly the same capacity as I was at North Carolina.
Lawyer (05:07:42):
How long were you there?
Melinda Wilson (05:07:43):
Two years.
Lawyer (05:07:44):
And you were with the North Carolina State Crime Lab for about how long?
Melinda Wilson (05:07:49):
A little over 10 years.
Lawyer (05:07:50):
All right. I'm going to take you to this case. Back in '19 and 20, were you asked to conduct some DNA analysis on items in a criminal case involving Paitin Fields as the victim?
Melinda Wilson (05:08:14):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:08:16):
And again, what were you asked to do, and how did you do it? What were you asked to do for this particular case? Not in detail, but what were you asked to do? DNA analysis, blood serum, body fluid analysis, or something else?
Melinda Wilson (05:08:35):
I was asked to perform DNA analysis on this case.
Lawyer (05:08:37):
And when you were at the state crime lab in '19 and '20, how did you perform DNA analysis?
Melinda Wilson (05:08:44):
DNA analysis is, you might have gone over this already, it's a multi-step process. So basically, it's a series of chemical reactions that lead you to a DNA profile, whether it be from a piece of evidence, which is unknown, or a known reference standard, which is like a cheek swab or blood sample from people known to be involved in the case. So that multi-step process is, you basically, I take a small cutting or swabbing of an item of evidence that potentially has cells on it that contain DNA. I swab them or cut them, and I put them in a little test tube and add some heat and chemicals in a process called extraction. So what that does is it breaks the cell open, kind of like cracking up in an egg to get the DNA out. So it's like getting yolk out of an egg. So that's the first chemical reaction that we do.
(05:09:27)
We then quantify the DNA present in that sample. So if any DNA is present above a certain amount, we move it forward, and if not, we stop there. We know based on validation studies that we do in our lab, which is scientific studies to show how much DNA we need to get a usable profile. So if a DNA quantity that we receive is lower than that amount, we stop there. If it's above that, we amplify the DNA. Amplification is another chemical reaction that's basically sort of like a molecular copy machine, so it's like taking billions and billions of copies of certain addresses on the DNA. And those copies were put on a machine called the genetic analyzer, which separates them into graphs, peaks on a graph. It looks kind of like an EKG. Each one of those is the DNA profile that I analyze and report my results on.
Lawyer (05:10:14):
Judge, at this time, I would tender Ms. Wilson as an expert in DNA analysis.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:10:20):
Any objection?
Luther Johnson Britt (05:10:21):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:10:23):
Witness will be qualified as an expert in the field of DNA analysis.
Lawyer (05:10:27):
Now, I want to go specifically to this case and specifically to your February 26th, 2019 laboratory report.
(05:10:38)
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:10:39):
You may.
Lawyer (05:10:51):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 122 for identification purposes. And I'm showing you a disc. And have you had a chance to review that disc prior to your testimony today?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:02):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:11:03):
And does it contain your complete report for the lab dated February 26th, 2019?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:09):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:11:10):
And has it been altered in any way that you could see?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:13):
No.
Lawyer (05:11:13):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 122, Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:11:16):
Any objection?
Luther Johnson Britt (05:11:17):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (05:11:17):
State's Exhibit 122 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (05:11:23):
So I'm going to walk you through, do you have a copy of your lab in front of you?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:26):
I do.
Lawyer (05:11:27):
All right. I'm going to walk you through this particular lab report. You were asked to review certain items, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:37):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:11:39):
Evidentiary items, Item number 4, a plastic nozzle from a whipped cream can?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:45):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:11:46):
Item number 5, a sealed manila envelope with nail scrapings from both hands?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:52):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:11:54):
Item number 6, a sealed envelope containing one penile swab?
Melinda Wilson (05:11:59):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:12:00):
And then items 9-1, cutting from boxers?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:05):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:12:05):
Item 9-2, cutting from boxers?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:07):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:12:08):
Item 10-1, swabbing of red earbuds?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:13):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:12:13):
Item 11, a TR-10 phone charger with cord?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:16):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:12:17):
And item 19, a hot blue gun with cord?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:20):
Yes. I want to clarify that I did not receive these.
Lawyer (05:12:23):
Okay. That's where I was getting ready to go.
Melinda Wilson (05:12:24):
Okay.
Lawyer (05:12:25):
These are items that you were asked to analyze against a standard, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:30):
I was asked to, yeah, compare the standard to the unknown profiles, yes.
Lawyer (05:12:33):
Correct. So you did not receive items 4, 5, 6, 9-1, 9-2, 10-1, 11 or 19. Is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:42):
That's correct.
Lawyer (05:12:42):
They were already swabbed or the information was already put into your database at the lab. Is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:12:52):
DNA profiles were generated from those items from a different scientist, yes.
Lawyer (05:12:56):
All right. So then what were you asked to do then on this particular lab?
Melinda Wilson (05:13:02):
I was asked to test some cheek swabs for Lisa Hunt and compare them back.
Lawyer (05:13:09):
Against these items?
Melinda Wilson (05:13:10):
That's correct.
Lawyer (05:13:11):
All right. So let's go through. Were you able to analyze these? Were you able to do a comparison of Lisa Hunt to these?
Melinda Wilson (05:13:20):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:13:21):
All right. And what were your findings as we walked through each one?
Melinda Wilson (05:13:24):
Do you want me to go down the list?
Lawyer (05:13:26):
Yes, please.
Melinda Wilson (05:13:26):
Okay. All right. So items 4 and 5, a DNA profile was obtained from the swabbing from the nozzle and nail scrapings from David Prevatte. The DNA profile obtained from Lisa Hunt is excluded as a contributor to these profiles for this profile. Item 6, the DNA profile obtained from the penile swab from David Prevatte is consistent with a mixture of three contributors containing a major contributor profile. The DNA profile obtained from Lisa Hunt is excluded as a contributor to the major profile. What that means is a major profile is interpretable. So you have three people at a minimum. One is comparable to a known reference standard and that known reference standard is not Lisa Hunt.
Lawyer (05:14:09):
Let me stop you there. So if there's a mixture and there was uninterpretable components of it, two minors, I believe in this particular item, you can't compare Lisa Hunt's to the uninterpretable, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:14:22):
That's correct. So I'm only comparing Lisa Hunt, the major, which is the person donating the most DNA of the three in that.
Lawyer (05:14:27):
Thank you.
Melinda Wilson (05:14:28):
Okay. Moving on to item 9-1. The DNA profile obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts is being interpreted as a mixture of four contributors containing a major contributor profile. The DNA profile obtained from Lisa Hunt is excluded as a contributor to this major profile.
Lawyer (05:14:45):
And again, for the other minor profiles, uninterpretable and you couldn't compare Lisa Hunt's standard to those, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:14:52):
That's correct. This is only compared to the major contributor of the four-person mixture.
Lawyer (05:14:56):
Thank you.
Melinda Wilson (05:14:58):
Items 9-2 and 11. The DNA profiles obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts and the swabbing...
Melinda Wilson (05:15:00):
The DNA profiles obtained from the cutting from the boxer shorts and the swabbing of the TR10 phone charger cord are being interpreted as mixtures of two contributors containing a major contributor profile. The DNA profile obtained from Lisa Hunt is excluded as a contributor to this major profile. So again, to the major, the one person of the two donating more DNA than the other. The other is inconclusive.
(05:15:24)
Item 10-1, the DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the earbuds is being interpreted as a mixture of three contributors containing a major contributor profile. The DNA profile obtained from Lisa Hunt is excluded as a contributor to this major profile. Lastly, item 19, the DNA profile obtained from the swabbing from the hot glue gun cord is being interpreted as a mixture of at least four contributors containing a major contributor profile. The DNA profile obtained from Lisa Hunt is excluded as a contributor to this major profile.
Lawyer (05:15:59):
And did you reduce this? We've already introduced your digital copy of your lab report and that digital copy contained a lab summary plus all your bench notes and analysis. Is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:16:14):
That's correct.
Lawyer (05:16:14):
And did you reduce it down to a summary lab report?
Melinda Wilson (05:16:18):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:16:18):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Your Honor (05:16:19):
You may.
Lawyer (05:16:32):
Okay. I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 123. Do you recognize 123?
Melinda Wilson (05:16:42):
Yes. State's Exhibit 123 is a black and white copy of the lab report I generated in this case.
Lawyer (05:16:47):
And does it contain your signature?
Melinda Wilson (05:16:50):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:16:51):
And does it contain your full report as you just testified to?
Melinda Wilson (05:16:54):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:16:54):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 123.
Your Honor (05:16:56):
Any objection?
Luther Johnson Britt (05:16:57):
No judge.
Your Honor (05:16:59):
State's Exhibit 123 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (05:17:12):
You were asked to perform one more or you were asked to also conduct more analysis later on in a report dated March 31st. Strike that. March 31st, 2020. Is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:17:29):
That's correct.
Lawyer (05:17:30):
And what were you asked to do in that particular report?
Melinda Wilson (05:17:37):
I was asked to analyze several pieces of evidence, additional pieces of evidence that were submitted in this case.
Lawyer (05:17:45):
Now these were additional pieces of evidence, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:17:47):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:17:48):
And that being item 26, a swab from a wall behind the couch, correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:17:54):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:17:55):
A cardboard box containing one used mini blind, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:18:00):
Correct.
Lawyer (05:18:00):
And with that mini blind, item 27, did you do anything with that mini blind? Did you do swabbings of that mini blind?
Melinda Wilson (05:18:09):
Yes. I took swabbings to test for the presence of DNA. And where did you swab? I swabbed from, one sample was from the ends of the cord of the mini blinds and then another swab from the center.
Lawyer (05:18:22):
And how did you swab those?
Melinda Wilson (05:18:26):
When you swab for DNA, it's basically taking a sterile q-tip and some sterile water. You put some sterile water on the q-tip and you swab where you're trying to collect cells from. And in this case, it was the ends of the cord and the middle of the cord separately.
Lawyer (05:18:38):
May I approach the witness, Judge?
Your Honor (05:18:38):
You may.
Lawyer (05:18:42):
I'm going to show you what's already been admitted as State's Exhibit 75 and ask, do you recognize State's Exhibit 75?
Melinda Wilson (05:18:53):
State's Exhibit 75 is my laboratory item 27, which is the used mini blinds. And I recognize that based on the lab case number, item number, my date and initials on the packaging.
Lawyer (05:19:07):
Thank you.
(05:19:07)
And did you also reduce your findings to a laboratory report?
Melinda Wilson (05:19:14):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:19:14):
May I approach the witness again, Judge?
Your Honor (05:19:15):
You may.
Lawyer (05:19:32):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 124 and ask, do you recognize the disc and the laboratory report contained on State's Exhibit 124?
Melinda Wilson (05:19:41):
Yes. State's Exhibit 124 is the disc that contains the lab report that we're discussing now.
Lawyer (05:19:46):
And based upon your review, did it contain your complete report, including your bench notes?
Melinda Wilson (05:19:50):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:19:51):
And has it been altered in any way?
Melinda Wilson (05:19:54):
Not that I'm aware of.
Lawyer (05:19:55):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 124.
Your Honor (05:19:57):
Any objection?
Luther Johnson Britt (05:19:57):
No objection.
Your Honor (05:19:59):
State's Exhibit 124 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (05:20:03):
So I would like to walk down your lab. Do you have a copy of your lab summary in front of you?
Melinda Wilson (05:20:08):
I do.
Lawyer (05:20:09):
And I would like to walk down that with you also. So tell us exactly what you were asked to do and what your results were.
Melinda Wilson (05:20:20):
Okay. Do you want me to cover item 28? You didn't bring that one up.
Lawyer (05:20:22):
I'm sorry. You were also asked to review or compare item 28 to known standards and that being a swab from a couch cushion. Is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:20:33):
That's correct.
Lawyer (05:20:33):
All right. Now, would you go through each item in your findings, please?
Melinda Wilson (05:20:37):
Yes. Let's see. So items 26, 27-1 and 27-2, based on quant results obtained from samples analyzed as part of this case, items 26, 27.1 and 27.2 are not being amplified. No further analysis was performed on these items. What that means is the DNA present on these items of evidence, if any, was at a level that was below where we know we can get a usable DNA profile from. So we stopped the testing there and retained the extracts.
Lawyer (05:21:13):
So that was on the wall behind the couch, correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:21:15):
The wall behind the couch and swabbing from the cord ends, which is 27-1, and then swabbing from the cord center, which is 27-2.
Lawyer (05:21:24):
And when you swab the cord centers and ends of that mini blind, how do you do that?
Melinda Wilson (05:21:32):
With the sterile swab technique I described previously.
Lawyer (05:21:34):
And do you go all the way up or when you're just doing it one part?
Melinda Wilson (05:21:38):
So when you're dealing with skin cells, touch DNA, you want to try to get as many as you can because it's very low level. So it's hard to get a usable profile from skin cells in general. So when you have something like a mini blind that is touched not very often and very transiently, you want to try to swab as much surface area as you can. In this case, I was looking... I swabbed basically the center that could be potentially tied around something. So try to get that person if there is one there. And then I swabbed just the ends, which are smaller segments on each end to be like if somebody was tying. So it's like who maybe held it and who was it around?
Lawyer (05:22:15):
All right. And you were not able to get enough DNA to even go through the quantification analysis, is that correct?
Melinda Wilson (05:22:24):
Based on the quant analysis, it could not move forward. Yes.
Lawyer (05:22:28):
So now let's go to item 28.
Melinda Wilson (05:22:29):
Okay.
Lawyer (05:22:30):
What were your findings there?
Melinda Wilson (05:22:32):
The DNA profile obtained from the swab from the couch cushion is inconclusive due to complexity and/or insufficient quality of recovered DNA.
Lawyer (05:22:41):
So how is this different than the previous analysis for the mini blinds and the wall behind the couch?
Melinda Wilson (05:22:48):
So I don't have the DNA profile with me, so I don't know. Based on our reporting guidelines at this time, we say complexity or insufficient quality. So I don't know if it was too low level, meaning there wasn't enough information to make a conclusion from, or if it was so complex, meaning so many people that you can't tell people apart. And at that point it becomes inconclusive, but it had to be one of those two things.
Lawyer (05:23:07):
All right. And did you reduce this, your findings down to a laboratory report summary?
Melinda Wilson (05:23:13):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:23:28):
I'm going to show you what's been marked as State's Exhibit 125 for identification purposes. Do you recognize 125?
Melinda Wilson (05:23:38):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:23:38):
And what is 125?
Melinda Wilson (05:23:40):
State's Exhibit 125 is a black and white copy of the second laboratory report that I generated in this case.
Lawyer (05:23:48):
And does it have your signature on it?
Melinda Wilson (05:23:49):
It does.
Lawyer (05:23:50):
And does it appear to be the complete lab report that you just testified about?
Melinda Wilson (05:23:55):
Yes.
Lawyer (05:23:55):
Move to introduce State's Exhibit 125.
Luther Johnson Britt (05:23:57):
No objection.
Your Honor (05:23:59):
State's Exhibit 125 will be admitted into evidence.
Lawyer (05:24:02):
Did you do any further analysis in this case that you're aware of?
Melinda Wilson (05:24:05):
No.
Lawyer (05:24:08):
Judge, I don't have any further questions.
Your Honor (05:24:10):
Cross examination?
Luther Johnson Britt (05:24:11):
No, sir.
Your Honor (05:24:13):
Is this witness subject to recall?
Lawyer (05:24:14):
No, your Honor.
Luther Johnson Britt (05:24:15):
No, sir.
Your Honor (05:24:17):
All right, ma'am. At this time, you're released from your obligations of your subpoena. You may sit down before you go. State, you may call your next witness.
Lawyer (05:24:45):
Judge, the state rests.
Your Honor (05:24:47):
All right. Members of the jury, this time there are matters that I need to confer with the attorneys about, so I'll go ahead and excuse you from the courtroom. Go ahead and close up your notebooks. Though the state has indicated that they have rested, do not yet express or form an opinion about this case. You have not yet heard the evidence from the defense and you have not yet heard the closing arguments or my instructions regarding this case. Do not have any conversation amongst yourselves regarding this case. Do not discuss with anybody else, including friends, family members, or coworkers. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses, and do not post online on any social media sites and do not conduct any independent investigation or inquiry. So we'll go ahead and excuse you and bring you back as soon as we're done. Thank you.
Bailiff (05:26:16):
Thank you, Your Honor. Make sure you leave your closed notebooks in your chair. [inaudible 05:26:17].
(05:26:16)
Jury has left the courtroom.
Your Honor (05:26:17):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. Mr. Britt, the state has rested.
Luther Johnson Britt (05:26:22):
Your Honor, at this time, the defense moves for dismissal charges based on insufficiency of the evidence, particularly as David Prevatte as the perpetrator of these crimes.
Your Honor (05:26:33):
All right. Thank you. State?
Lawyer (05:26:36):
Judge, you've heard the testimony. There are facts in issue. So the issues are the identity of the perpetrator. You've heard testimony. I think it's up to the jury to decide whether or not it's sufficient to convict David Prevatte of these crimes, Judge.
Your Honor (05:27:00):
Mr. Smith, can you go into a little bit more detail regarding the evidence for the statutory rape charge?
Lawyer (05:27:05):
Sure, Judge. As to a statutory rape charge, you've heard that there's been two things. You've heard that there's injuries to Paitin Fields' vagina. You've also heard testimony that she has an injury to her anus. As to the statutory rape charge, Judge, you've heard that there's three profiles on Mr. Prevatte's penis. We would contend that now you've heard from our witnesses that the vaginal injuries could be from a penis, finger, or any other object. A penis, Judge, would be statutory rape. It also can be statutory sex offense. But we're arguing, Judge, that the statutory rape charge should withstand any dismissal based upon the circumstantial evidence, and in particular, the fact that there's a third profile on his penis. The jury has to decide whether or not that is enough to assume or to say that he used his penis when he is potentially causing these injuries to her vagina.
Your Honor (05:28:26):
As far as that additional profile, I don't recall, but was there a determination made as to the sex of that undetermined portion?
Lawyer (05:28:37):
I think it was undetermined. It was a third insufficient, and I don't think they could say it's male or female, Judge.
Your Honor (05:28:44):
Okay. All right. Anything else?
Lawyer (05:28:49):
No, Judge.
Your Honor (05:28:50):
All right. Mr. Britt?
Luther Johnson Britt (05:28:53):
Your Honor, to say that there was a third profile that was not identified that the jury could then decide it was David's is purely conjecture. There's no DNA found inside of her, either her vagina or her rectum, which would be used to identify someone. The issue in this case is there was none period sufficient to identify. The issue regarding the sexual assaults, again, it's being left to guesswork as to whether or not it was a hand, a penis, a finger. The evidence is just insufficient to establish that David committed either of those crimes.
Your Honor (05:29:51):
All right. Thank you. Now, the biggest difference being between the statutory sex offense and the rape is that penis has to be established for the rape specifically.
Lawyer (05:30:06):
Penis specifically has to be established for the rape.
Your Honor (05:30:08):
But for the sex offense, it's catchall. It can be any sort of object.
Lawyer (05:30:15):
Including a penis.
Your Honor (05:30:15):
Including a penis.
Lawyer (05:30:16):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (05:30:17):
But it doesn't have to be.
Lawyer (05:30:18):
Right.
Your Honor (05:30:18):
It can be anything else. And in fact, that specific thing doesn't necessarily need to be proved by the state.
Lawyer (05:30:25):
Correct, Judge.
Your Honor (05:30:29):
Okay. All right. I'm going to take the matter under advisement. We'll be at ease for the next few moments.
Bailiff (05:30:35):
We'll be at ease.
Your Honor (06:03:47):
All right. With regard to defendant's motion to dismiss, the state is alleging three charges, the first being first degree murder, the second statutory rape of a child by an adult, and the third statutory sexual offense of a child by an adult. With regard to the defense's motion to dismiss as to counts one and three, that motion is denied. The court believes that there has been substantial evidence presented to the jury of those two charges such that the question can be presented to the jury.
(06:04:24)
With regard to the second count, statutory rape of a child by an adult, the state needs to establish substantial evidence of two things. First, that the state proves each essential element of the crime and that the defendant was a perpetrator of that crime. The court considers all the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and draws all reasonable inferences. Any contradictions or discrepancies must be resolved by the jury. Charge of statutory rape has three elements. First, that the defendant engaged in vaginal intercourse with the victim. Vaginal intercourse is penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ by the male sex organ. Second, that at the time of the alleged acts, the alleged victim was a child under the age of 13 years. And third, that the time of the acts alleged the defendant was at least 18 years of age.
(06:05:29)
This statutory rape charge differs significantly from the statutory sex offense by an adult of a child by an adult in that the state does not need to prove that the male sex organ entered into the female sex organ. Rather, the state needs only proof that any penetration, however slight, by an object into the genital or anal opening of a person's body gives the state a lot more leeway as to establishing that particular offense. And for the record, both offenses are listed as class B1 felonies. They're listed as the same type of felony offense.
(06:06:23)
The state has shown that Paitin Fields received trauma to her vagina, clitoral hood, and rectum. However, the only evidence to indicate that perhaps Mr. Prevatte's penis entered Paitin's vagina is a third component of unknown, inconclusive amount of DNA. Whether that third DNA portion is female or otherwise cannot be said. Without any other evidence to link the second necessary element, the jury would merely engage in a guessing game. Therefore, I do not find that substantial evidence has been established with regard to the statutory rape offense and I grant the defense's motion to dismiss and note the state's objection to my ruling. Thank you.
(06:07:05)
All right. Mr. Britt, do you wish to present any evidence?
Luther Britt (06:07:11):
No, sir. We do not.
Your Honor (06:07:12):
Okay. With regard to your client's giving any sort of testimony, have you had a conversation with your client about whether he would testify or not?
Luther Britt (06:07:23):
Yes, sir. Multiple.
Your Honor (06:07:24):
And has he indicated that he would not testify?
Luther Britt (06:07:28):
That's correct.
Your Honor (06:07:29):
All right. Mr. Prevatte, if you can please stand. Mr. Prevatte, you understand that you have a constitutional right to remain silent. Do you understand that?
David Prevatte (06:07:41):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:07:42):
All right. And you understand that that constitutional right remains with you throughout this trial?
David Prevatte (06:07:48):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:07:49):
And do you understand that if you wish to exercise your right to remain silent, I would instruct the jury that they could not use that silence against you?
David Prevatte (06:07:58):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:07:59):
And do you understand that you also have the right to testify if you wanted to testify? Do you understand that?
David Prevatte (06:08:05):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:08:06):
And that you could give up your right to remain silent and that you could take the stand and testify if you wanted. You understand?
David Prevatte (06:08:12):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:08:13):
And that whether to testify or not testify are choices that you and you alone can make. Do you understand that?
David Prevatte (06:08:21):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:08:22):
Now, your attorney has indicated that you do not wish to testify. Is that accurate?
David Prevatte (06:08:26):
Yes, sir. I do not wish to as he did pretty good.
Your Honor (06:08:29):
Okay. All right. So in other words, the choice that you're making not to testify is your choice and yours alone?
David Prevatte (06:08:35):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:08:36):
And it is not the choice of your attorney?
David Prevatte (06:08:39):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:08:39):
And you're making that decision not to testify knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily?
David Prevatte (06:08:44):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:08:45):
All right. Thank you, sir. You can have a seat.
(06:08:49)
All right. So we will bring the jury back in. Mr. Britt, you can rest in front of the jury.
David Prevatte (06:08:55):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:08:56):
And then we will roll into our charge conference. Given the amount of time that we have, I think that we can go substantially through our charge conference. Anything else that we might need to resolve, we could probably resolve by email and then put on the record anything in the morning can do closing arguments in the morning. Is that sufficient?
Lawyer (06:09:22):
That is, Judge.
Luther Britt (06:09:22):
Yes, sir.
Your Honor (06:09:24):
Okay. All right. Anything else that needs to be discussed on behalf of the state?
Lawyer (06:09:27):
No, Your Honor.
Your Honor (06:09:28):
The defense?
Luther Britt (06:09:29):
No, sir.
Your Honor (06:09:30):
Let's bring our jury back in.
Bailiff (06:09:32):
Bring in the jury. Jury's seated, Your Honor.
Your Honor (06:10:28):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has reentered the courtroom. Mr. Britt, the state has rested. Do you wish to present any evidence?
Luther Britt (06:10:35):
No, sir.
Your Honor (06:10:36):
Defense rests?
Luther Britt (06:10:37):
Yes.
Your Honor (06:10:37):
All right. Thank you. Members of the jury, all of the evidence has now been presented. It will soon be your duty to decide from the evidence what the facts are and to apply the law that I'm about to give you to those facts in arriving at your verdict in this case. Prior to the arguments of the lawyers and the final instructions of the court on the law that will follow the lawyer's speeches, I'm required to confer with the lawyers about the law involved in this case. For that reason, we're going to excuse you for the remainder of the day, and then we will reconvene again in the morning. However, as I cautioned you before, do not yet express or form an opinion regarding the evidence of this case. You have not yet heard the final arguments of the attorneys or my final instructions on the law that you will apply.
(06:11:34)
So as you go home, also remember not to discuss this case amongst yourselves. Do not discuss this case with anybody else, including friends, family members, or coworkers. Do not have any contact with any of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses. Do not conduct any independent investigation or inquiry. All of the evidence that you've seen or heard in the last couple of weeks is the only evidence that you can consider and no other evidence from any other source. If you happen to have to go by any of the locations that have been mentioned, you may pass by them, but you're not allowed to stop and conduct any independent inquiry or investigation. You are not allowed to post online on any social media sites regarding your experience as a juror or any of the evidence that you've seen or heard. All right, members of the jury, go ahead and pull up your notebooks, take off your red badges, clip them to your notebooks, and you're excused until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
Speaker 12 (06:13:24):
Jurors, make sure that you attach your badges [inaudible 06:13:26].
Bailiff (06:13:25):
Jury's left the courtroom, Your Honor.
Your Honor (06:13:25):
Thank you, sir. Let the record reflect that the jury has exited the courtroom. All right. Both of you have access to computers and email.
Luther Britt (06:13:36):
For the record, at the close of all the evidence, the defense moves its motion to dismiss the charge of first degree murder under the theory of premeditation deliberation, also under felony murder, and we move to dismiss the first degree sex offense.
Your Honor (06:13:51):
Thank you. State wish to be heard?
Lawyer (06:13:52):
Judge, you've heard our arguments before, but there's ample evidence to suggest that, A, Paitin Fields was murdered and sexually assaulted, that being a sex offense judge in both her anal and vaginal openings. You've heard ample evidence that there were only five people in that house that night. One of them now is dead, that being Paitin Fields. You've seen the evidence, you've heard the evidence. I believe now it's up to the jury to decide is that evidence sufficient enough to say that David Prevatte killed Paitin Fields. That is for the jury to decide, Judge. There's ample substantial evidence to suggest that there is, and that's up to the jury to decide that. So that'd be my arguments, Judge.
Your Honor (06:14:32):
Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Britt?
Luther Britt (06:14:33):
No, sir.
Your Honor (06:14:33):
All right. I will deny the motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence.
Shirley Smircic (06:14:40):
Judge, I did draft a verdict form and proposed instructions. If we want to work off of that, I can send you the Word document.
Your Honor (06:14:48):
Absolutely.
Shirley Smircic (06:14:50):
If I may approach.
Your Honor (06:14:52):
You may.
Luther Britt (06:14:56):
Thank you.
Your Honor (06:15:12):
Thank you. All right. I'll allow you a moment to look through that, Mr. Britt.
Shirley Smircic (06:15:29):
And Judge, I'll email the Word document to yourself as well as the parties, just so if we make any changes, it'll be easier.
Your Honor (06:15:36):
That'd be perfect. Thank you.
Luther Britt (06:22:35):
Yes, sir, I have.
Your Honor (06:22:36):
You have? All right. Aside from anything as far as the substantive offenses, were there any additional instructions you wish to include?
Luther Britt (06:22:48):
No, sir.
Your Honor (06:22:49):
Were there any instructions aside from the substantive offenses that you had an objection with?
Luther Britt (06:22:57):
No, sir.
Your Honor (06:22:58):
Okay. So all of the instructions up to statutory sexual offense, you have no objection to?
Luther Britt (06:23:07):
Well, for the record, I do since you have my motion to dismiss, but other than that-
Your Honor (06:23:14):
All right. With regard to 207.45A, statutory sexual offense, Mr. Britt, do you wish to say anything regarding the instructions as they're written there?
Luther Britt (06:23:32):
No, sir.
Your Honor (06:23:39):
Okay. With regard to 206.14 first degree murder, any objection with regard to that instruction as it is written?
Luther Britt (06:23:50):
Not as it's written.
Your Honor (06:23:54):
Okay.
Luther Britt (06:23:55):
For the record, I object on the same basis I objected to the first degree sex instruction.
Shirley Smircic (06:23:59):
Judge, I did notice I had a typo on page seven under the murder substantive offense when I took out at the top of the page on line three, it needs to read, "If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date, the defendant committed statutory sexual offense of a child by an adult and the state has proven the elements of," it should say of the offense or of this offense. That was when I took out the rape, I left either in there.
Your Honor (06:24:29):
All right, thank you.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:26:59):
I think that page seven, that very first paragraph, we're under the final mandate. I think the pattern jury instructions has us give the portion of the final mandate of this statutory sex offense, which then outlines the elements. And I think that I'm going to change that paragraph so that it reads, "If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date, the defendant engaged in a sexual act with the alleged victim who was a child under the age of 13 years, and that the defendant was at least 18 years of age and that while committing statutory sexual offense with the child by an adult, the defendant killed the victim and that the defendant's act was approximate cause of the victim's death, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of first degree murder and then a first degree felony murder rule." Any objections to that on behalf of the state?
Speaker 13 (06:28:06):
No, Judge.
Speaker 14 (06:28:06):
No Judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:28:06):
On behalf of the defense?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:28:06):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:29:20):
All right. Page five at the top of that first incomplete paragraph, last portion reads, "Perpetration of a sexual offense." I'm going to put in the actual offense just so that it's consistent. So it will read first degree murder under the first degree felony murder rules, the killing of a human being and the perpetration of statutory sexual offense of a child by an adult. Any objection to that on behalf of the state?
Speaker 14 (06:30:09):
No judge.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:30:11):
On behalf of the defense?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:30:12):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:30:47):
All right. Anything else with regard to the jury instructions, Mr. Britt?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:30:51):
Yes, sir. I would ask that instruction at 104.90 identification of the defendant as perpetrator of a crime be moved to the paragraph before the substantive offenses beginning on page four.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:31:12):
All right. So you want it right above the statutory sexual offense?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:31:16):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:31:18):
Any objection?
Speaker 13 (06:31:19):
Judge, I would say they're all sequential and I ask that you leave it in place.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:31:26):
All right. I'll go ahead and move it above the substantive offenses.
Luther Johnson Britt (06:31:33):
And I would also ask that the 20614, the combination of premeditation of murder and felony murder be instructed before the 20745A statutory sex offense. Just flip those in order.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:31:52):
I actually prefer the order that it's in. Otherwise, what we then have to do is read the elements of the statutory sex offense twice. And this simplifies that, but that also is within your purview of objecting to if you want all of the elements included in there.
Luther Johnson Britt (06:32:21):
Yes, sir. I understand. But the verdict form will show first degree murder, premeditation, deliberation, first degree murder under the felony murder rule and just keeping it consistent with the process that will go through and complete their responsibility.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:32:43):
Regarding the verdict sheet, I'm going to separate statutory sexual offense of a child by an adult and put it on its own verdict sheet. I think that just gives it a cleaner look and allows them to consider each charge individually. So whether it's first or second won't necessarily be any indication as far as the verdict sheets are concerned. Does that resolve that?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:33:09):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:33:09):
Okay. Anything you all wish to say?
Speaker 13 (06:33:12):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:33:24):
Okay. All right. I've moved 10490. Anything else, Mr. Britt?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:33:51):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:33:52):
Okay. I'm going to go ahead and remove all the headings, and then I'll send you all a copy of this final instructions.
Speaker 14 (06:34:10):
And Judge, do you plan on sending a copy back with the jurors as they deliberate?
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:34:15):
Yes. I always like giving them a copy because talking a lot doesn't really get absorbed, and so having a reference for them is always good practice.
Speaker 14 (06:34:27):
We would request that judge and remove the headings, which sounds like you're arguing today for their copy.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:34:31):
Yes.
Luther Johnson Britt (06:34:31):
There's no objection to that.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:43:39):
All right. Thank you. Email them to you and a copy of the jury instructions. All right, just sent them to you. What I would suggest is that you all go over them tonight, as will I, with a fine tooth comb, make sure that we've got everything. All right. So state prepared to start their closing arguments in the morning?
Speaker 13 (06:45:12):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:45:13):
And Mr. Britt, do you wish to give the first opening and rebuttal or just the last closing?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:45:22):
I'll wait first and we'll do the second.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:45:24):
All right. Thank you. So state, you'll be first in the morning. As far as the exhibits that you plan on re-showing to the jury?
Speaker 13 (06:45:38):
Yes.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:45:39):
Any of that, that shouldn't be shown on the broadcast?
Speaker 13 (06:45:43):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:45:43):
Okay. So what we'll probably do is just restrict your entire presentation. I assume you're going to have a presentation?
Speaker 13 (06:45:51):
Yes, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:45:52):
Okay. We'll just restrict your entire presentation from the broadcast so we don't have anything accidentally coming in or out.
Speaker 13 (06:45:59):
Yes.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:46:03):
Okay. All right. Is there anything else we need to discuss on behalf of the state?
Speaker 13 (06:46:06):
No, Your Honor.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:46:07):
On behalf of the defense?
Luther Johnson Britt (06:46:08):
No, sir.
Judge Ricardo Jensen (06:46:15):
Okay. Then we'll be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
