Published: July 08, 2008 06:18 pm         

Another hearing scheduled in Woodruff capital murder case

By Brad Kellar

Herald-Banner Staff



Prosecutors and defense attorneys for accused capital murderer Brandon Dale Woodruff are scheduled to clash yet again this week, over potential evidence in connection with Woodruff’s taped telephone calls.

Woodruff’s sister, Charla Woodruff, and Assistant District Attorney Keli Aiken are among the eight people the defense team had subpoenaed to appear at 9 a.m. Friday before visiting Judge Webb Biard.

A trial date has still not been scheduled in Woodruff’s case, even though the murders of his parents occurred and Woodruff was originally charged some 45 months ago.

But the legal wrangling over the calls Woodruff made to his defense team and recorded by the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office has been the subject of several pretrial hearings since last fall. The defense team is seeking to suppress testimony from any potential witness who may have listened to the tapes.

Prosecutors with the District Attorney’s office have again denied there is any evidence on the tapes, and claimed none of its lay witnesses ever heard the tapes to begin with.

Chief defense counsel Jerry Spencer Davis had previously filed motions, seeking any information available resulting from the District Attorney’s Office concerning the taping of Woodruff’s calls.

Davis asked for all handwritten notes taken by District Attorney’s Office personnel relating to the recordings; along with copies of all e-mails, text messages and memoranda concerning the recordings which were shared between prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. Davis was also seeking the names of everyone who may have heard the recordings and all transcripts made of the tapes.

Assistant District Attorney Noble Walker has argued the tapes of the calls had already been turned over to the defense and claimed the additional information Davis was seeking was confidential, as it was privileged work product.

Last month, Biard ordered the Hunt County District Attorney’s Office to turn over its file in the case for an “in camera” inspection, to be considered in conjunction with the transcripts of the telephone calls.

That inspection was conducted on May 21.

Biard then issued an order indicating that should the defense attorneys wish to file any motions to suppress evidence which may have been discovered during the inspection, they had to do so by June 6.

Davis’ motion seeks to “suppress any evidence or further investigation from the illegal tapes of lawyer client communications.”

In the motion, Davis claimed to have evidence that individuals not connected with law enforcement, who potentially could be called as witnesses for the prosecution during an upcoming trial, had listened to the tapes.

Davis also claimed that the witnesses who may have heard the tapes would have the opportunity to “change their testimony to further their own interests”, which would prevent Woodruff from adequately confronting the witnesses who would testify against him and therefore further violating his constitutional rights.

Walker denied that the tapes had been heard by any lay witnesses. Walker also denied the tapes have played any role in the prosecution’s investigation.

Last September, trial Judge Richard A. Beacom ruled Woodruff’s Sixth Amendment constitutional rights to confidentiality were violated when prosecutors listened to the recordings of telephone calls from the jail between Woodruff and his defense team.

Beacom has also appointed a special prosecutor from the Texas Attorney General’s Office, but has repeatedly refused motions from defense attorneys to throw out the case against Woodruff and dismiss the capital murder indictment outright.

Beacom has ruled evidence obtained from any calls between Woodruff and his defense team would be suppressed, as would any information obtained as a result of any investigation from information obtained during the calls. But Beacom also said it was incumbent on the defense team to show what portions of the recordings would be considered in violation of the attorney/client privilege.