PWC Consulting


Ronnie Lee Kimble 


 Home   v  Search

 Timeline  v  Case File  v  Trial Record  v  Media Coverage





Admission of Evidence & Scheduling

THE COURT: Next witness, please.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, as we've indicated at the bench, the next witness is Peggy Millen. She's not available, due to a doctor's appointment. She'll be here first thing in the morning.

We would seek to introduce into evidence at this time State's Exhibit 138, the paperback book entitled Bible


Lists; 139-A through C, the photographs contained therein.

MR. LLOYD: Object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PANOSH: 140-A and B, the Marine Corps enlistment medical questionnaire that was referred to; 140-J, health records; 140-P, health records from 7/26/95; 140-R, report on the sleep test, two pages; 148-A and B, the photographs of Ted Kimble's wedding and the celebration of marriage ceremony announcement; 146-A through C, the extradition papers.

MR. LLOYD: Your Honor, to preserve our objection for the record, we would also object to the book. I believe it's indicated. I've forgotten what the -- I'll tell you what it is.

(Mr. Lloyd approached the exhibit table.)

MR. LLOYD: 138, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The Court'll allow the introduction of those exhibits specified by the State.

MR. PANOSH: There's an exhibit that we just received, that I can either move for its introduction now, or allow counsel an opportunity to view it. It's rather extensive.

MR. LLOYD: Well, we would like to have a chance to review it.

THE COURT: The Court'll allow its review.


Anything else, sir?

MR. PANOSH: Not in the nature of evidence. (Mr. Panosh handed an exhibit to Mr. Lloyd.)

MR. PANOSH: We do ask again that at the appropriate time, the jury be allowed to review the exhibits.

THE COURT: The witness that'll be testifying tomorrow, are they a short or long witness? Do you have any idea, sir?

MR. PANOSH: Direct examination, 10 to 15 minutes.

THE COURT: Members of the jury, we'll take our evening recess. You'll need to be back in the morning by 9:30. Please report to the jury room. Please remember the Court's other instructions.

Ms. Sidwell, the Court will certainly take care of you, get you to Chapel -- I mean to Raleigh by 3:00 o'clock. And I think we'll probably adjourn sometime after the -­before lunchtime for the weekend.

JUROR NUMBER 9, MS. SIDWELL: I appreciate it.

THE COURT: Any other matters before the recess?

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, we would like to know whether this single witness that's disrupting everybody's life is truly relevant to this case. We'd like to have the Court determine. We deliberately curtailed our evidence this afternoon --


MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, if we could be heard at the bench or in the absence of the jury, I think it's appropriate.

THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury, step in the jury room a moment, please.

(The jury left the courtroom at 4:29 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right, sir. Who is the next witness, Mr. Panosh?

MR. PANOSH: Peggy Millen is the mother of Rodney Woodberry. You've already heard testimony that Theodore Kimble went to that location, in an attempt to locate him before the death of Patricia Kimble and after the death of Patricia Kimble. She would give the details of that. She would also be in a position to testify as to the credibility of Laura Shepard, who is one of the defense' main witnesses. And that's based upon a substantial relationship with her.

THE COURT: Gentlemen, do you wish to be heard?

MR. HATFIELD: Yes. Your Honor, all day long, and a good deal of yesterday, when you've asked us to forecast the number of witnesses, Mr. Panosh has said he had about three rebuttal witnesses. He's now brought I don't even know how many. I would have to look at the notes, to see.


MR. HATFIELD: Six or seven. Your Honor, the Woodberry matter is a side show. And I said at the bench


before the lunch break that I would be glad to have a woman who had a doctor's appointment be taken out of order. And during the lunch break, we resolved that in the interest of time, we would do everything possible to curtail witnesses. And among other things, we sent Dr. Wilmington back to Lynchburg, Virginia, because we just decided that his evidence would probably be cumulative. So once again, we have tried to be statesmanlike and professional, and it's just not working out that way. And I don't see the reason to convene this court, in order to have one more lady from Alamance County come over here and try to rehabilitate Rodney Woodberry.

And Your Honor, I also don't think that it is in any way apt to describe Laura Shepard as one of our principal witnesses. We would not have even known what Laura Shepard's testimony was, had it not been for police investigations that were turned over to us. We thought it was relevant.

I just don't see the reason for inconveniencing, not just myself, but the jury and everybody else. I really feel we sat down and said, let's do something to get this case put to bed, and it hadn't done us a lick of good. I wish I had Dr. Wilmington here now, so we could also be listening to a repeat of Jerry Falwell.

THE COURT: Well, the Court's -- the State has


their obligations to meet, and I can't tell them how to try their case. I know it's been a long case. We've already got 77 witnesses and 175 exhibits into evidence.

MR. HATFIELD: We have taken less than 40 percent of the time that they took. And you know, we ought to get some credit for that.

THE COURT: Mr. Panosh, do you wish to call a witness that the earliest she can be here is in the morning at 9:30?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, that's correct. Over the lunch, I sent Detective Church to try and get her here at 2:00 o'clock, and she was in substantial discomfort and was on her way to the doctor's office. And she -‑

THE COURT: Is she going to be any better in the morning?

MR. PANOSH: Well, I've been here all day, so I can't update Your Honor, but she said to Detective Church she would be here at 9:30.

THE COURT: Why don't you have her call in?

MR. HATFIELD: Why don't we just have her Monday morning?

THE COURT: Well, we've got -- first we've got a lot of things to do. We have -- the jury's going to take some time to look at these exhibits. That's all got to be done within a time frame. And then we have the instruction


conference. That'll take some time. The arguments, I want to get those started first thing Monday morning, if at all possible, so that the arguments can be held together, and the jury have a chance to weigh the different arguments presented to them. And I assume you're going to have, what, four arguments?

MR. PANOSH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The State going to have an opening and closing?

MR. PANOSH: There'll be four, yes, sir.

THE COURT: I assume you gentlemen are going to have intervening arguments. And so, we're talking about all Monday, probably, with the arguments.

MR. HATFIELD: It won't be that long.

THE COURT: Well, maybe we can get it to the jury Monday on this phase of it.

MR. HATFIELD: Your Honor, how long will the charge take?

THE COURT: The charge is not going to take long on the first phase. Just depends on how long the jury deliberates. I'd like to get -- we got good jurors that have been on time. We've got 15. We've been able to keep 15, because we've kindly kept them fresh. I continue to do that, and get them out of here as quick as we possibly can.

MR. PANOSH: All I can tell Your Honor is that I


did the State's rebuttal in under three hours, and hadn't -­had it not been for the fact that she had a doctor's appointment, I would have done it in three hours. And I apologize for any inconvenience, but there was no way I could go around that.

THE COURT: Is there any way you can make the flight tomorrow at lunchtime?

MR. HATFIELD: Yes, sir, I can.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HATFIELD: If we can leave at 11:15.

THE COURT: I'll have you on that plane at 11:15

MR. HATFIELD: All right.

THE COURT: -- or whatever it takes.


THE COURT: The jury can go until 9:30 in the morning.

Any other matters before we recess?

We'll recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(A recess was taken at 4:34 p.m. until 9:30 a.m. Friday, August 28, 1998.)


(Court convened at 9:36 a.m. The defendant was present. The jury was not present.)

THE COURT: Any matters we need to take care of before we bring the jury in?

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, about 10:00 o'clock last night, Detective Church called Ms. Millen and was told to check back this morning. This morning he called back, and she was to be hospitalized, so she will not be available.

I have gone over the evidence log with the clerk, and I'm in agreement, except for State's Exhibit Number 147. That was not admitted, probably due to an oversight on my part. That's the statement of Rodney Woodberry. And if you'll recall, he identified two statements. One was admitted for the defense, and the State had him identify a statement on cross-examination. But it wasn't admitted until -- wouldn't have been able to admit it until this time of the trial. We'd move for the admission of 147.

MR. LLOYD: Well, Your Honor, if I could just take a look at it.

THE COURT: Let him see the statement.

MR. PANOSH: Here's a copy.

(Mr. Panosh handed a document to Mr. Lloyd, and time was allowed for Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Hatfield.)

MR. LLOYD: Well, Judge, I will object on the


grounds that I've objected earlier.

(Mr. Lloyd handed the document to Mr. Panosh.)

THE COURT: Let me see the statement, Mr. Panosh. I can't remember whether I've got it written down or not. (Mr. Panosh handed the document to the Court.)

MR. LLOYD: Just contains a great deal of information that's simply not corroborative. What we're really asking the jury to do is, to take that statement as evidence, rather than their recollection of this witness's testimony.

(Time was allowed for the Court.)

THE COURT: All right. The Court's going to sustain the objection, and not admit 147. I think he's testified to most of that.

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, my recollection is that he was asked about it on direct, and he was asked to read pieces of it into the record. And the State then on cross-examination identified it. And I think if he was asked about specific pieces, then the entire document should go in. Your Honor has allowed their defense exhibit from the same witness.

THE COURT: It's talking about a motorcycle ride that he offered him, and all that, but nothing like that ever came into evidence.

MR. LLOYD: Judge, and just to set the record


straight, I didn't ask him questions about that statement.  I asked him if in fact he made a statement to Mr. Panosh and he -- and that's the only thing I asked him.

THE COURT: The Court's not going to allow its admission. Denied.

Here. Do you want this back, Mr. Panosh?

MR. PANOSH: Yes. Thank you.

(The Court handed the document to Mr. Panosh.)

MR. PANOSH: Your Honor, other than asking the jury to review the State's evidence, that'd be the State's evidence on rebuttal.

MR. HATFIELD: We have one witness.

THE COURT: One rebuttal?

MR. HATFIELD: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Bring them back.

(The jury entered the courtroom at 9:40 a.m.)



Published August 15, 2006.  Report broken links or other problems.

© PWC Consulting.  Visit our website at for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.