Linda Evans versus NC ends in mistrial
By Erin Hardy
Asheville, North Carolina, Oct. 14 (AGR)—
The case of Linda Evans versus the State of North Carolina ended on
the afternoon of Monday, Oct. 13 when a jury of six men and six women
were unable to reach a unanimous decision regarding Evans’ charge
of murder in the first degree.
Evans, a 52-year-old Leicester resident, was tried last week for the
murder of her long-time boyfriend, Wiley Carroll Early, Jr., age 28
at the time of his death. The state was represented by prosecuting attorneys
Rodney Hasty and Paul Jackson, who called their witnesses to the stand
during the first days of the trial. Al Messer, Evans’ court-appointed
lawyer, followed the prosecution with the defense’s witnesses.
Judge Zoro Guice presided over the case.
The trial began the morning of Oct. 7, 2003. An air of solemnity permeated
the atmosphere in front of the Buncombe County Courthouse. Braced against
the early morning chill and dampness, a group of about ninety people,
mostly women, formed a line across the steps of the courthouse, holding
hand made signs that read slogans like, “What about self defense?”
and “Self defense is not first degree murder!” One sign depicted
a woman with a battered and swollen face, asking the question, “What
would you do?”
Although the trial was not scheduled to begin until 10am, the hallway
in front of the courtroom was filled with people well before the appointed
hour. Many of those who had held signs in front of the courthouse earlier
in the morning, as well as friends and family of Evans, waited to silently
support her by providing a courtroom presence. Jury selection began
as both the prosecuting and defense attorneys asked potential jurors
each a series of questions. Jurors were dismissed if they had had intimate
experiences with domestic violence that would inhibit their ability
to objectively consider the facts of the case. Several on the stated
they had been closely affected by domestic violence but remained because
they said they would not let thier personal experiances would not influence
thier objectivity. Jury selection concluded late Monday afternoon, and
the prosecution began calling their witnesses to the stand to present
these facts.
According to the testimonies of several Buncombe County police officers
who were called to the scene of the crime, they arrived at the home
of Evans on the afternoon of Aug. 8, 2002, to find her estranged boyfriend,
Wiley Carroll Early, Jr. shot to death in the master bedroom. Evans,
who was being treated as a rape victim at the emergency room of Mission
St. Joseph’s Hospital, told attending detective Anne Benjamin that
she had “shot at” Early as he was attempting to rape her the
night before but was uncertain as to whether or not he had been hit.
While being examined and treated at the hospital, Evans was questioned
repeatedly by Benjamin as well as a representative from Our Voice, a
local non-profit organization that provides support for women who are
victims of domestic abuse. Although Evans appeared calm and coherent
to hospital staff, she was unable to give a clear account of what had
transpired the night before. Throughout the afternoon, she provided
several different versions of the story, claiming sometimes that she
could not remember because everything was blurry, and sometimes providing
elaborate details that contradicted one another.
When Evans was released from the hospital the morning after the rape,
she was escorted to the Buncombe County Police Station where she was
questioned further. There, she continued to provide conflicting versions
of the same story. When she was finally asked to write a formal statement,
the details of her statement were different still from her previous
accounts. After being confronted with the inconsistencies of her report
by Benjamin and other detective who participated in the questioning,
Evans allegedly admitted that she had made up parts of the story and
had created false evidence because she feared that no one would believe
that she had killed Early in self-defense.
In the new statement that she provided to police, Evans claimed that
she had lied about the location of the gun she had used to shoot Early
and that she had staged the crime scene. She confessed to having cut
off her own underwear after Early was already dead, whereas before she
claimed that he had cut them off before he raped her. She also said
that she had taken the phone off the hook to make it look like she had
attempted to call for help and had inflicted upon herself a series of
small, superficial cuts that she had previously attributed to Early,
as he raped her at knife point.
Throughout the course of the weeklong trial, prosecuting attorneys relied
heavily upon Evans’ false first statement in an attempt to convince
jurors that Evans was lacking in credibility, repeatedly refering to
her as manipulative and deceptive. They revealed that Evans had been
caught synthesizing evidence in a prior case in small claims court.
A number of medical professionals that interacted with Evans the morning
after the rape were brought to the stand on behalf of the prosecution
to testify that Evans was very aware and lucid at the hospital, and
that she did not demonstrate signs of trauma or shock. Dr. Frances Eizember
of Mission St. Joe’s was called in to report that Evans displayed
no vaginal or cervical lacerations, and a nurse’s assistant said
that, in her opinion, Evans’ behavior was “abnormal”
because she was so calm. The prosecution used these testimonies to insinuate
that the sexual intercourse that had transpired between Evans and Early
the night that Early was shot and killed had been consensual.
Upon cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, Evans’
court appointed lawyer, Al Messer, directed the jury’s attention
to the fact that rape victims demonstrate a variety of different reactions
to the event and that it is not at all uncommon for women to appear
very calm. He asserted that the medical definition of “alert”
(knowing one’s name, the date and why one is there) is inadequate
to determine a rape victim’s true state of mind.
Messer further argued that vaginal and cervical lacerations are not
a good indicator of whether or not a rape has occurred, as the majority
of rape victims do not show these symptoms. He also pointed out to the
jury that, while there may have been inconsistencies in Evans’
account of the rape, one thing remained very consistent: the fact that
she had been raped.
The defense called Evans to the stand on Wednesday afternoon and encouraged
her to tell the jury about her relationship with Early. Evans described
a seven year relationship riddled with violence and abuse. She told
the jury of several instances in which she had Early arrested to “give
him time to think about what he was doing to me.”
She revealed that, at one time, she had sought out domestic violence
counseling, and that she had received domestic violence protection orders
from the Buncombe County Magistrate’s Office, including a restraining
order that was still in effect at the time of Early’s death. While
on the stand, Evans also recanted her second statement to police, saying
that she was manipulated by Buncombe County police officers into confessing
to having staged the crime scene. When Messer asked Evans to tell the
court how the shooting and killing of Wiley Carroll Early, Jr. has affected
her life, Evans grew tearful as she turned to the jury and said, “you
have no idea what it’s like to live with the fact that I have taken
a human life.”
Paul Jackson spoke on behalf of the prosecution in Evans’ cross-examination.
Jackson attempted to extract the details of the night of Aug. 7, 2002.
Evans claimed that she didn’t remember speaking to the police at
the hospital, nor did she remember saying many of the things that the
hospital staff had quoted her as saying.
The prosecution questioned Evans extensively about her relationship
with Early. In an attempt to belittle the significance of the complaints
that she had filed against him throughout the years of domestic violence,
Jackson asked Evans why she had dismissed every claim shortly after
she had filed it. Evans reported that she, “didn’t want to
hurt him like that,” and that there had been many other occasions
in which he had abused her and she had not sought legal intervention.
In a final effort to diminish the validity of Evans’ claim of a
long history of abuse, the prosecution produced a number of cards and
letters that Evans had written to Early over the years, and asked Evans
to read them aloud to the jury. Al Messer’s vehement objections
were overruled by presiding judge Zoro Guice, and Evans began to read
in a voice shaking with emotion. She read a card that she had written
to Early on their first Christmas together. In it, she thanked him for
“the best gift of all: your love.” She also read a letter
that she had written to Early after they had separated, about a year
before his death. In this letter, Evans lamented the end of their relationship
and told Early that she would always be there for him.
As Evans wept on the stand, the prosecution accused her of killing Early
because he would not take her back and then arranging the crime scene
to make it look as though he had raped her and she had killed him in
self defense. Jackson explained to jurors that Evans had shot Early
three times with a gun that only held two bullets, and claimed that,
if Evans had the time to reload, then her life was not in imminent danger.
He reminded Evans that she had invited Early over to her house, in direct
violation of the restraining order that she herself had requested. The
prosecution appealed to the jury to be suspicious of Evans’ tearful
demeanor because she had already proven herself to be untrustworthy.
He concluded his cross-examination by reminding the court that Evans
had not been so emotional in the days following Early’s death.
As Evans stepped down from the stand, she was replaced by the defense’s
most compelling witness, Dr. Dianne Follingstad. Dr. Follingstad has
been a full professor of psychology at the University of South Carolina
for the last thirty years. She is one of about only 200 certified forensic
psychologists in the nation, and specializes in clinical psychology,
which is the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of psychological disorders.
She is also the author of a book and over one hundred medical articles.
Over the past year, Dr. Follingstad has administered a series of internationally
accredited intellect tests to Evans in order to determine her functionality.
Dr. Follingstad reported on the stand that in the three tests that she
had given, Evans ranked in the 8th, 9th, and 13th percentiles, placing
her just barely above mental retardation for her age group. Dr. Follingstad
administered one test called “Trails A and B,” a sort of connect
the dots that includes letters as well as numbers. Of this test, Dr.
Follingstad remarked that, “the cut-off is eighty-nine, ninety
seconds… a minute and a half. She went almost four minutes. So
she went so far over the limit, and seemed quite confused as far as
trying to make these sequences.”
Dr. Follingstad told jurors that Evans has a neuro-psychological deficit,
commonly called brain damage, that was probably sustained as a result
of a stroke that Evans says she suffered at the age of 22.
Dr. Follingstad also reported that Evans fit the profile of a victim
of physical abuse, and that she felt that Evans suffers from Post-Traumatic-Stress
Disorder, which would affect her ability to clearly recall events surrounding
the shooting.
Another doctor working closely with Dr. Follingstad on Evans’ diagnosis
reported that one manifestation of Evans’ brain damage is that
she is unable to adapt to emotionally charged situations, and that the
already questionable functioning of her mind is further compromised
in stressful situations.
The trial of Linda Evans drew to a close on Friday afternoon, after
both the prosecution and defense had made their closing remarks. The
defense hoped the jury would bear in mind that Evans had been abused
at the hands of Wiley Carroll Early Jr. for seven years, and that there
exists documentation of this abuse. The testimony of Dr. Follingstad
presented Evans as a woman who suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,
and also from impaired mental capacity, and that her actions are, while
not ideal, certainly not criminal. The defense’s case appeared
to rest on the compassion and empathy of the jurors.
The prosecution demanded that the jury acknowledge that the outcome
of the case depended upon their ability to trust Evans’ word as
the truth because the only other person that could confirm what happened
that night was dead. The prosecution reminded the jury that they could
not trust Linda Evans.
Judge Zoro Guice instructed the jury to consider Linda Evans eligible
for a charge of not guilty by reason of self-defense, voluntary manslaughter
(which carries a sentence of about ten years), second degree murder
(ten years to life), or first degree murder (in this case, life imprisonment
without parole). The jury requested several pieces of evidence to assist
in their deliberation and left the courtroom at 3:30, Friday afternoon.
Despite Judge Guice’s efforts to encourage a verdict on Friday
so as to not interfere with his vacation, scheduled to begin Monday
morning, the jury left late Friday night without a verdict. They reconvened
Monday morning and returned to the courtroom as a hung jury. The State
of North Carolina versus Linda Evans was declared a mistrial, to be
retried with a new jury in December, 2003.
Liz Allen contributed to this article
