Jim’s Books Now Available


Get Jailbreak! and see Jim's other books at Barnes and Noble. Also available at iTunes, Kobo, and Scribd.

James Scott Bauhaus 1974 Court Transcript

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )

      Plaintiff, . )

) 

vs. ) No. CRF‑73‑2A 

)

JAMES SCOTT BAUHAUS,    )

  Defendant. )

Tulsa, Oklahoma, June 4 and 5, 1974.

Before,

HONORABLE RAYMOND W. GRAHAM, District Judge.

APPEAL TRANSCRIPT

APPEARANCES:

MR. JERRY TRUSTER, Assistant District Attorney,

Tulsa County, Oklahoma,

for the State;

MR. JAMES E. WALLACE, Attorney at Law, Tulsa County

Public Defender’s Office,

for the Defendant.

Glen R. Dorrough,

        Certified Shorthand Reporter.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opening statement on behalf of the State‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——————————–‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑      4

Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑—————————-      9

WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:       Direct   Cross    Redirect     Recross

Doctor Robert Fogel‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑———— 12 19

Dorothy Hunt ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑————–21386163

Mrs. Jack Baker‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑————– 67 73 81 83

85

D. A. Roberts‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑—————- 87 89

Bill Yarbrough‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑—————-102107109109

Jess McCullough ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑————–111120125130

132 133

EXHIBITS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:    

                                                                                   Ident.   Off.  Rec’d.

1 ‑    Gun‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——————–‑‑‑‑‑— 104 104 105

2 ‑     Projectile ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑———————- 88 88 88

3‑19  Photographs‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——————– 100 104 104

20     Photograph‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——————- 100 100 (excluded)

21     Screwdriver ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——————- 100 104 104

22     Preliminary information——————— 189 188 188

State rests——————————————————————————————134

WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:    Direct   Cross    Redirect     Recross Judy Cole‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——– 136 139 169 171

173

WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: (Rubuttal):

Lucille Towry‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑—————— 178

Closing argument on behalf of the State‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑—————- 190

Closing argument on behalf of the Defendant‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑————– 203

Final closing argument on behalf of the State‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑—————- 232

Reporter’s Certificate ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——————– 249

Certificate of Trial Judge ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑——————– 250

+ + +

(On June 4, 1974, the State of Oklahoma appearing by Jerry Truster, Assistant District Attorney; the Defendant appearing in person and by and through his attorney, James E. Wallace,the jury having been impaneled and sworn, the following proceedings were had in case number CRF‑73‑24.)

THE COURT:Now, the next order of the trial

will be the opening statements of counsel. Now, the opening state-

ment is a very important part of the trial but the statement

of counsel is not evidence. The State will make their opening

statement first and then the defendant will make his opening

statement. The opening statement by the State will generally

consist of the reading of the information and then a brief

thumbnail sketch of what he intends to prove by his witnesses.

He anticipates that they will testify as he announces to the

jury. Many times it doesn’t come out exactly that way and you

must consider the opening statement as an aid or a guide to

the jury and not as evidence itself. And when the State concludes

its opening statement the defendant will make an opening statement

and the same admonition applies to the opening statement of the

defendant as applied to the opening statement of the State and you

are to consider it as a helpful hint or guide to correlate the evidence

with the issues in the cause.

At this time the Court will recognize Mr. Truster who

will make the opening statement for the State. Mr. Truster.

MR. TRUSTER: Thank you, Your Honor. Before

proceeding the State would wish to invoke the rule of sequestration

and ask that Detective Jess McCullough be exempt from the

rule as the officer in charge of this investigation.

THE COURT: Permission granted. At this time I

would inquire are there any witnesses in the courtroom at this

time either for the State or for the defendant? Any witnesses

in the case? Do you have any?

MR. WALLACE:No, Your Honor, not at this time.

THE COURT:Since the Court is not familiar with

the witnesses and you gentlemen will be, occasionally let

your eyes stray to the back of the courtroom so if witnesses

come in unannounced why you will be able to motion them

outside and they will be sworn as they come in and then I

will admonish them not to discuss their testimony.

MR. WALLACE:Very good, sir. For the purpose of the

record we would ask that the State offer Officer McCullough’s

testimony prior to the rest of their testimony for the purpose

of the record.

THE COURT:I will overrule and allow an exception

unless he concedes.

MR. TRUSTER:Ladies and gentlemen, as the Court

previously indicated I will read to you the information filed

in this case bringing the accused before the Court and for trial

today. “The State of Oklahoma versus James Scott Bauhaus,

CRF‑73‑24. Information for murder. Be it remembered that

S. M. Fallis, Jr., the duly qualified and acting District Attorney

for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, who prosecutes in the name and

by the authority of the State of Oklahoma comes now into the

District Court of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and ‘gives

the Court to understand and be informed that James Scott

Bauhaus on or about the 17th day of October, A.D., 1972, in

Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, and within the jurisdiction of

this Court did unlawfully, feloniously, maliciously, intention‑

ally and without authority of law and with a premeditated design

upon the part of said defendant to effect the death of a human

being, to‑wit, one Jefferson Dee Hunt, shoot and discharge a

leaden bullet into the body of him the said Jefferson Dee Hunt,

from a certain loaded pistol which he, the said James Scott

Bauhaus, then and there had and held in his hand and did then

and there and thereby inflict upon the body of him the said

Jefferson Dee Hunt a mortal wound, from which said mortal wound

the said Jefferson Dee Hunt did then and there languish and

die, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made

land provided and against the peace and dignity of the State”.

Signed S. M. Fallis, Jr., District Attorney by myself, Assistant

District Attorney.

And to this information, ladies and gentlemen, the

defendant has entered his plea of not guilty which puts in

issue all of the material allegations contained in the State’s

information. By way of an opening statement I am going to

digress a bit from what I usually give in opening statement and

I am going to ask in this particular case, as we indicated on

voir dire examination yesterday, that you pay very close

attention to the testimony that is offered. The State will call

first as its witness Doctor Robert Fogel. Doctor Robert Fogel

will testify in sum and substance that he was the physician,

the pathologist involved in the autopsy of the deceased, Jefferson

Hunt He will tell you of the results of his autopsy and

basically he will tell you that Jefferson Dee Hunt died of a

gunshot wound, died pretty quickly from a gunshot wound, in his

opinion, and he will fill in certain other aspects of his

autopsy that he did. We will offer Doctor Robert Fogel as

an expert pathologist as to the cause of death of the deceased.

The State would then call to the stand Dorothy Hunt.

Dorothy Hunt is the wife of the deceased, Jefferson Hunt. She

was with her husband on the 17th day of October, 1972, indeed

she and her husband returned to their residence at 5124 East

25th Place, I think that is the correct address, she will tell

you where she lived; it’s in Tulsa County. She went there about

2:30 or a quarter of 3:00 in the afternoon, drove up to their

residence got out of the car, went inside the house and was

confronted by a young man who was inside the house. She will

testify that they locked the place when they left that day.;

that her daughter lives with them and she works for Bama Pie

and she was gone on the early morning hours off to her job and

usually returned later in the afternoon and it was customary for

Dorothy Hunt and Jefferson Dee Hunt to return to their residence

approximately that same time each afternoon. There was a grand‑

son that returned from school, a school located not too far away.

She will tell you that she observed the defendant, James Scott

Bauhaus, inside their residence, indeed Jefferson Hunt observed

the defendant inside the residence

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that statement,

Your Honor, there is no testimony anticipated to be offered

from Mr. Hunt during this trial.

THE COURT: Well, I can’t anticipate now what the

evidence will be.

.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Hunt is the deceased.

MR. TRUSTER: We would like to offer his testimony

but he is the deceased. Your Honor, circumstantially I think

that statement would stand based upon the anticipated evidence.

In any event, ladies and gentlemen, they saw the defendant

standing inside their home;. that Mr. Hunt went forward to the

defendant and stated, “Give the gun” ‑‑ that Mrs. Hunt can

testify to ‑‑ at which time the gun was fired and which gun,

the State will offer this gun, State’s Exhibit Number one, a

gun owned by Jefferson Hunt himself, a gun kept by his bedside,

kept loaded.

Mrs. Hunt, I anticipate, will tell you that she had an

occasion after seeing her husband fall to the floor to observe

this man, the defendant, James Scott Bauhaus, from a distance

of about two to three feet and as soon as the shot was fired

and her husband hit the floor and she made her observations at

close range of this man here before the Court that the defendant

ran out the back of the house, that indeed he left by the back

kitchen area, the storm door and she will testify that she heard

a crash, et cetera, and she assumed that he ran down and away

from the house. That basically will be her testimony with one

added factor. I anticipate that she will tell you that she

.

looked at the house after her husband was in the condition

lying on the floor and found that a bag or a pillow case was in

the area of the living room or dining room, wherever, and that

her jewelry was inside; that the house had been ransacked from

top to bottom and she will tell you about the details of that.

That basically will be Mrs. Hunt’s testimony, that she will

positively identify this man seated before you as the person

who pulled the trigger of Mr. Hunt’s own gun and killed him.

The State would next call to the stand Mrs. Jack Baker.

Now, Mrs. Jack Baker was present at a location in Tulsa County

:’approximately a block or so from Mrs. Hunt’s house, that she was

there to pick up her child from school, from Hoover Elementary

School, that she was inside her car, doors locked and reading

a book and happened to notice a young man in his early twenties,

I anticipate the testimony will show, running, not jogging

but running quite hard down past her; that she looked up from

her reading material and observed that person and I don’t know,

ladies and gentlemen, whether she can positively say that James

Scott Bauhaus was that same person or not but she will tell you

what she observed and in her testimony she will tell you that

the man that she observed, if not positively identified as James

Scott Bauhaus, strongly resembled James Scott Bauhaus; that that

person was looking at his left arm or one of his arms repeatedly;

that that person had a flushed face, that that person had certain

characteristics in his appearance that she remembers with

detail. I think that the testimony will reflect, ladies and

gentlemen, that Mrs. Jack Baker will identify James Scott Bauhaus

That will be basically the testimony of the State’* case with the

added testimony of police officers who arrived at the scene.

At this time I do not know exactly which of the officers

we will call. We will present to you some photographs of the

crime scene as it appeared on October 17th, 1972. We should

have them now but they are being developed across the street and

should be here in my hands about 11:00 o’clock. But we will

offer those pictures to reconstruct the scene and let you ladies

and gentlemen of the jury see it as it appeared on October 17th,

1972, when the defendant, James Scott Bauhaus, took the life of

Jefferson Dee Hunt.

At the conclusion of all of the witnesses and all of the

evidence in the name of the State of Oklahoma and in the interest

of justice, ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you to find the

defendant James Scott Bauhaus guilty of murder. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Wallace, you may make the opening

statement for the defendant.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning,

Ladies and gentlemen. Just a few comments, short opening

statement to you to get into this trial and let you hear the

evidence.

The State anticipates they. will prove.  Number one, what

Mr. Truster has said to you is what he intends to prove, none of

this is evidence, it is not to be considered as evidence what he

intends to prove and what the State may prove.

MR. TRUSTER: Excuse me, Your Honor, I will object.

That is proper closing argument, not opening statement.

THE COURT: I will grant some latitude on opening

statement.

MR. WALLACE: What the State intends to prove is

not to be considered as evidence in this case and is to be con‑

sidered in its entirety and scrutinized as citizens and given

whatever credibility you feel appropriate. To the evidence in

this case, not comments from Mr. Truster and myself.

The State has told you what facts they intend to prove.

We contend once all of the facts are in the facts will show an

entirely different situation. We anticipate that at the close

of the State’s evidence the State will not at this time have

!met its task of overcoming the presumption of innocence and there

will be reasonable doubt in your mind –

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, Your Honor, that is

improper opening statement.

THE COURT: I think that is more properly for the

closing argument, counsel.

MR. WALLACE:. Very good, Your Honor, thank you.

All we ask, ladies and gentlemen, is that you keep an open mind,

scrutinize the testimony of every witness very carefully. This

is a very serious case, we request that you draw on all of your

experience of a citizen living here and of your powers of

observation. We request that you listen very closely, keep an

open mind and it is our contention that the facts will show that

this is not the case; in fact an entirely different situation

is present here. I am certain that after you hear the evidence

you will realize that the State has not met this burden.

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will permit it but it would probably

be more appropriate for the closing argument but since you are

making your opening statement at the conclusion of the State’s

opening statement I will give you some leeway along that line.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. Again, ladies and

gentlemen, all we ask is that you keep an open mind, listen to

the State’s witnesses, listen to our witnesses, make up your

own mind. At the end of the trial I am sure you will realize

there is only one verdict and that verdict will be not guilty.

Thank you.

THE COURT: The State may call your first witness.

MR: TRUSTER: Your Honor, the State will call

Doctor Robert Fogel.

THE COURT: Do you solemnly swear the testimony

you are about to give in the cause now on trial will be the

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you

God?

THE WITNESS: I do, sir

DOCTOR ROBERT FOGEL,

called as a witness on behalf of the State, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. State your name for the Court and record, please, sir?

A. Doctor Robert Fogel.

Q. What is your business, profession or occupation?

A. I am a pathologist.

Q. And where do you

Q. perform your services, Doctor?

A I am director of laboratories and chief pathologist

at the Oklahoma Osteopathic Hospital in Tulsa here.

Q. I will ask you, Doctor, would you tell the Court and

jury of your qualifications and educational background?

A Yes, I am a graduate of the Philadelphia College of

Osteopathic Medicine. I served an internship at the Oklahoma

Osteopathic Hospital here from 1958 to 1959. I was then in the

general practice of medicine from 1959 until 1962 in Mannford,

Oklahoma, in Creek County. In 1962 I returned to education in

Detroit at the Detroit Osteopathic Hospital and I took a three‑

year residency in anatomic and in clinical pathology and at the

end of 1965, at the end of the training I returned to Tulsa to

the Oklahoma Osteopathic Hospital and was employed as the

pathologist and director of laboratories. I then became

certified in anatomic and clinical pathology by written, oral

and practical examination and then in 1966 I was appointed as a

consultant pathologist to the State Medical Examiner’s office

which meant that I would do autopsy examination on certain

cases which are called medical examiner cases, those who had

died as a result of a suicide or a homicide or an accident and

so on. I then became certified in forensic pathology which is

that brand or that type of pathology which deals with matters of,

medicine and the law in 1973. I am a member of the American

Academy of Forensic Sciences, the National Association of

Medical Examiners and I am a visiting lecturer in pathology at

the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine. I have just been

appointed as a clinical professor of pathology at the new

Oklahoma College of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery.

Q. Are you licensed to practice here in the State of

Oklahoma?

A Yes, sir, in Oklahoma, Michigan and Missouri.

MR. TRUSTER: At this time, Your Honor, the State

would offer Doctor Robert Fogel as an expert pathologist.

MR. WALLACE: We would have no objection, Your

Honor, we recognize Doctor Fogel as a pathologist.

THE COURT: He is so certified.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Doctor Fogel, did you have an occasion,

please, sir, to conduct an autopsy of a deceased Jefferson Dee

Hunt?

A I did, sir.

Q. Does your report indicate the date of such an examina‑

tion?

A Yes, sir, October 17th of 1972 and the autopsy was

started at 6:00 P.M.

Q. I will ask you, Doctor, would you ‑relate to the Court

and jury the findings of your autopsy of the deceased, Jefferson

Dee Hunt?

A Well, the initial examination was that of the clothes

that he was wearing and he was wearing a pair of maroon knit pant

with belt which was intact and he had $16.00 in paper money and

$1.03 in change in his right front pocket. He had a black comb

in his left rear pocket. He also had a pack of Rolaids in his

left front pocket along with a penknife and a keyring. He was

also wearing a black Banlon pullover short sleeve shirt and the

short sleeve shirt had three holes in it on the upper left area

of his chest and each hole averaged about an eighth of an inch

in diameter ‑‑ I am sorry, one‑quarter of an inch in diameter.

He was also wearing a pair of white socks and black shoes and

he had bloodstains on the left shoe. He was wearing underwear,

a checkered boxer shorts. And separately submitted with the

body was a pair of glasses, a cigarette lighter and a slip which

had tabulated money on it, like from an adding machine and the

total number was $100.75.

We then proceeded with the rest of the examination and we

noticed that he had an area on his right thumb which showed

an excoriation of the skin which we call an abrasion. He also

had an abrasion or an excoriation of the skin on the right

small finger He had an abrasion also on his kneecap. The most

pertinent finding was the fact that there was a bullet entrance

wound in the left chest which was located between the second

and third ribs, three and seven‑eighths inches left lateral of

the midline, so right where I am pointing to would represent the

location of a bullet wound.

And upon dissection and use of a probe we were able to

determine that the bullet had passed through the second.‑ third

rib interspace, went into the left lung and proceeded left to

right, backward and then downward so that it went through a

major vein to the lung and the lung itself, the food pipe or

the esophagus and the bullet lodged in the fifth dorsal vertebra

or a backbone vertebra right between the two wing bones, so the

bullet lodged about here (indicating). So, it entered here and

lodged here. So, it went left to right, front to backward and

from above downward.

About the bullet entrance wound there were carbon sort of

a tattoo or what we call stipple change and these are powder

deposits or powder residue from the gunshot. The rest of the

examination showed little remarkable change other than what we

would expect for a 50‑year‑old male. He was A‑positive in his

blood type. That is about it, sir.

Q. Let me ask you this, Doctor, if I can interrupt. You

indicated certain powder indications?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have an occasion to examine those fairly

closely?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And as a result of that examination, Doctor, would

you have an opinion as to the approximate distance in which this

shot was fired?

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I would have to object

to that as outside the expertise of Doctor Fogel.

THE COURT: You will have to qualify him for him

to make that determination, counsel.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Have you ever examined gunshot wounds

before?

AYes, sir.

Q. In the course of your autopsies?

A Yes, sir.

Q. About how many autopsies have you performed in which

gunshot wounds were the cause of death?

A I have done autopsies on approximately 100 gunshot

autopsy cases.

Q. And in those 100 approximate autopsy cases have you

examined powder burns on some of those?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And do you generally make a determination or have an

opinion as to the distance in which a weapon is fired that

causes such powder burns?

A Yes, sir.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, once again I would have

to object. I believe this is a ballistics field rather than a

pathological field.

THE COURT: I will overrule if the Doctor has

sufficient ‑‑ can be qualified to make that opinion.

MR. WALLACE: Exception. THE COURT: Allowed. . .

  Q. (By Mr. Truster) You have, Doctor, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q. And do you have an opinion, Doctor, insofar as the

examination of this particular wound on Jefferson Hunt in relation

to the powder burns, et cetera?

A Yes, sir. As a result of the pattern of the. carbon

stippling and what we call fouling one would call this a moder‑

ately close range, somewhere between six inches and 18 inches,

in that broad range, somewhere between six and 18 inches.

Q. And, Doctor, I neglected to ask you, please, sir, as

a result of your autopsy examination do you have an opinion as

to the cause of death of Jefferson Dee Hunt?

The cause of death was the direct result of the bullet

wound which entered into his chest and resulted in hemorrhage

in his lung and so on.

Q. Did you have occasion in your autopsy, Doctor, to

recover any slugs from the deceased person?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you do with that, if you know?

A Well, I examined it and measured it and I inscribed

the base with the initial of my last name, the first initial

of my last name, F, and then I then gave that to D. A. Roberts

who is a detective in the homicide division of the Tulsa police

department.

Q. Now, you indicated from your external examination of

the deceased that the shirt indicated three holes in it. How

many gunshot wounds did you observe in the body of the deceased?

A One, sir.

Q. A single wound? .

A Yes, sir.

Q. The three holes have no materiality insofar as ‑‑

A well, of course, there is often folding, see, if I

would fold my shirt I could get multiple holes.

Q Very good.

A From one bullet.

Q. But a single gunshot wound was all you found?

A Yes.

Q. Doctor Fogel, just one more question, please, sir.

How tall was Jefferson Dee Hunt?

A I have him at five foot eight inches.

MR. TRUSTER Five foot eight inches. All right.

Thank you, Doctor, I have no further questions.

CROSS‑EXAMINATION .

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Doctor Fogel, would you state again for me, please,

the date of your autopsy, sir?

  A 10‑17‑72.

Q. And approximate time, please?

A 6:00 P.M.

Q. Now, is that time representative of the time you

first initially observed the body or the time of the actual

process of the autopsy?

A That would be the time that I first observed the body

and began the examination.

A. Very good, sir. Of your own knowledge do you remember,

sir, when you were first notified of this case?

A I don’t have any record with me when I was notified.

I  was notified by Doctor Tom Hinkle, or by Doctor Tom Stuart

Hinkle who is deputy medical examiner, and I would have to

assume that he notified me in the afternoon perhaps an hour or

two prior, I would just have to assume.

Q. Very good. Would you repeat for the jury, please,

where the bullet entered the deceased?

A Yes, between the second and third ribs approximately

three and seven‑eighth inches left of the midline of the chest,

so right about here (indicating).

Q. And once again, please, I couldn’t see as you turned

where the bullet was finally lodged?

A It lodged in the fifth dorsal vertebra, back, I am

sorry, back here.

Q.Very good.

ABetween the two wing bones or scapula.

Q. In the actual vertebra itself?

Yes, sir, in the body of the vertebra and I recovered

the bullet from the body of the vertebra, sir.

Q. Very good. Doctor Fogel, in regards to these powder

burns, you have testified you have done a number of autopsies in

gunshot cases?

AYes, sir.

Q. Which I understand and respect your qualifications.

Have you had occasion, sir, to take other courses in ballistics

or in regard to powder wounds upon the skin or is that considered

the actual field of pathology?

A That is part of forensic pathology, the interpretation

of wounds and the type of gunshot wounds, yes, sir.

Q. Is that considered in your profession, sir, an

accurate basis of determination, is there an accurate basis of

determining the distance?

A Oh, no, one would have to use a broad range like I did

MR. WALLACE: Very good. I believe that is all I

have. Thank you, Doctor Fogel. .

MR. TRUSTER: I have no further questions. Thank

you, Doctor.

THE COURT: The witness may be excused unless he

is needed for further attendance.

MR. WALLACE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT:You may be excused.

MR. TRUSTER: The State would call Dorothy Hunt.

THE COURT: Raise your right hand. Do you .

solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give in the cause

now on trial will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing

but the truth so help you God?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You may come forward and take the

witness stand.

DOROTHY HUNT,

called as a witness on behalf of the State, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. State your name for the Court, record and jury, please,

ma’am?

A Dorothy Hunt.

Q. Mrs. Hunt, you are the wife of Jefferson Dee Hunt?

A Yes.

Q. I will ask you, ma’am, have you ever seen State’s

Exhibit Number One before?

A Yes, I have.

MR. WALLACE: I object to that, Your Honor, unless

proper predicate is laid.

THE COURT: I will overrule.

Q.(By Mr. Truster) Would you take a look at that,

please, ma’am, and make sure that you have seen that before?

A Yes, sir, it belonged to my husband.

Q. Belonged to your husband. Where did he keep that,

please, ma’am? .

AOn a table by his bed.

Q. In what condition did he keep it, if you know?

A Well, he kept it loaded.

A. Mrs. Hunt, I will ask you, please, ma’am, what business

Mr.. Hunt was in? .

A Well, he had a book store at the time.

Q. This was an adult book store, was it not?

A Yes.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, directing your attention

to October 17th, 1972, if you had an occasion to be with your

husband on that day?

A Yes.

Q. And what time of the day were you with him, please?

A Oh, from about 1:30 on.

Q. 1:30 in the afternoon on? .

A Yes.

Q. And I will ask you, please, ma’am, directing your

attention to the early morning hours of that particular day

where were you at that time?

A We were at home.

Q And where is your residence?

A At that time it was 5145 East 25th Place.

Q. 5145 East 25th Place?

A Yes.

Q. is that location in Tulsa County?

A Yes, it is.

Q And did anyone else live with you other than you and

your husband?

A Yes, my daughter and grandson.

Q. And on the 17th day of October, 1972, please, ma’am,

was your daughter employed? .

A Yes.

Q. Where did she work?

ABama Pie.

Q. What was her hours of employment on that day if you

A 4:00 to 2:00.

Q. 4:00 ‑‑ . . .

A About 2:30.

Q. 4:00 in the morning until 2:30 in the afternoon?

A Yes.

Q. All right. Now, I will ask you, please, ma’am, did

you have an occasion to leave your residence on October 17th,

1972?

AApproximately 9:30 in the morning.

Q. And was anyone left in the house at all?

A No.

Q. What day of the week was this, if you recall?

A Tuesday. .

Q. On a Tuesday?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was school in session? .

A Yes, sir. . .

Q. Did your grandson go to school?

A Yes.

Q. Where did he go to school?

A He went to ‑‑ it’s on Pine, I can’t even think of the

name of it now.

Q. About what time does he generally or did he generally

return home from school, please, ma’am?

A Well, he rode the bus so it was approximately 4:00

o’clock.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, if anything unusual

happened to you and we fully realize it did on that particular day

but did it?

A. Yes.

Q.What time?

A. Oh, about 2:45.

Q. In the afternoon?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you with your husband at that time, ma am?

A Yes.

Q. Where were you exactly?

A  We got home about that time.

Q. Where had you been?

A We had been to Ranch Acres Shopping Center.

Q And you returned home, just the two of you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did  you do upon returning home?

A. We got out of the car and went into the house.

Q. Anything unusual happen, please, ma’am, when you got

out of the car and you went into the house?

A  After we got inside the house, yes.

Q. Okay. How did you get inside the house exactly? Tell

the Court and jury how your house is situated if you would.

A. It faces west.  My husband unlocked the door And we

went in.

Q. Front door? .

A Yes, sir.

Q. You say unlocked the door. Did you earlier secure

your door that day when you left your residence?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Were there any other doors to your house? .

A Yes, sir.

Q.How many?

A Two.

Q. were you the last person that left prior to returning

to that home?

A Yes.

Q. Did you secure all of those other doors too, please,

ma’am?

A Yes, sir, we did.

Q. After you and your husband entered the front door of

your residence what then did you observe?

A Well, there was a small hallway right there inside the

front door and to the right is the living room and to the left

is the dining room.

Q.To the right is the living room; to the left the

dining room?

A Yes,  sir.

Q. What next happened?

A Well, my husband walked to the dining room, he always

laid his keys and things on the table and we noticed a boy

standing in the corner of the dining room.

Q. You noticed a boy standing in the corner?

A Yes, sir.

Q. What happened when you noticed that, please, ma’am?

A. Well, he had this gun in his hand and it was raised.

Q.It was raised?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Ma’am, would you show this Court and jury, please,

ma’am, how that person had that gun raised when you first observed –

THE COURT: Now the gun, you have checked to make

sure the gun is unloaded?

MR. TRUSTER: Yes, the gun has been unloaded, Your

Honor.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) That is State’s Exhibit Number One,

would you kind of show the Court and jury how he had it?

A About like this. He was standing.

Q.He was standing?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. How tall was your husband, if you recall, ma’am?

A He was about five seven.

Q. How far away were you from your husband at that time

that you observed this boy with the gun raised?

A Just a step or two.

Q. Was he in front of you?

A Yes.

Q. What happened when you saw this incident?

A Well, my husband turned toward the boy and told him

to give him the gun and he stepped toward him, the gun went off.

Q. And who was holding the gun at the time that the gun

went off?

A The boy was.

Q. Now, how far away were you, please, ma’am, from your

husband at that time?

AOh, just three or four steps.

Q. And how far were you away from the boy that was holding

the gun that went off?

A Probably the same distance, they were standing right

close.

Q. Pretty close together?

A Yes, sir.

Q. What happened, please, ma’am, after that gun went off?

A Well, the boy dropped it to. the floor and stepped

over my husband he stood there for just a few seconds and then

he ran for the back door.

Q. Ran for the back door?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Ma’am, I wonder if you could ‑‑ I don’t know how good

an artist you are, I am pretty bad ‑‑ but would you kind of

sketch, if you would with this chalk, the basic outline of your

home as those events transpired, the dining room, living room

and the hall and that kind of stuff and label it for the Court

and the jury.

THE COURT: You will probably have to make it

bigger so the jury can see it.

MR. TRUSTER: If you would make it big so every‑.

body can see it.

THE WITNESS: That is supposed to be the front

door, there is a small hallway here, here was the living room,

up here as you came back in this corner was the dining room

and here was the kitchen and here is the back door where he ran

out.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Now, you have got a series of

rectangles. If you would, would you label those for the jury

so they can kind of see them?

A This would be the living room, dining room, kitchen.

Q. Kitchen. And you indicated you had some other doors

in that residence, is that right?

A Yes, here in the dining room there is a double door

there.

Q. That goes out to the back yard?

A Yes.

A. How about the kitchen?

A It went to the back yard.

Q. How do you get from the dining room into the kitchen?

A There is a door here.

Q. Doorway there?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. How about the hallway into the dining room, also

a door opening? How do you get from the hallway into the dining

room?

A Well, no, there is no door there.

Q. You have got some lines here,  I am a little confused,

Mrs. Hunt.

A This should be erased because the hallway was open

on each end.

Q.And this is your front door?

A Yes, sir.

Q. So you could go either right or left either way you

wanted to go?

AYes, sir.

Q.Now, where, please, ma’am, did you first observe

this person in your house? .

A In this corner right here, he was standing right here

in this corner, the dining room.

Q. Did he ever move from that position until the shot

was fired?

A No, he didn’t.

  Q. He stayed there the whole time?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And this is just when he was just a few steps away

from you?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Now, ma’am, you indicated that after the shot was

fired he dropped the gun to the floor?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And what happened to your husband, please?

A Well, he had fell to the floor right after the shot

was fired.

Q. And this person stepped over your husband?

A Yes.

Q. And how far away were you from this person when he

stepped over your husband?

A A couple of steps.

Q. In feet how many feet would you say that would be?

A Probably three.

Q. About three feet?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. About the distance that you and I are apart right

now?

A Yes, uh‑huh.

Q. Did you get a look at that person, please, ma’am?

A Yes, I did.

Q. Did you get a good look at him?

AYes, sir.

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your Honor,

and move that be stricken as to what a good look is.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) How long did you have the opportunity

to observe that person that looked at you, please, ma’am?

A Well, approximately, five, six seconds.

Q. I will ask you, Mrs. Hunt, to look around the courtroom

today and see if you see that person that fired that gun into

your husband on the 17th day of October, 19727

AYes, I do.

Q. And for the record where is he seated and what is he

wearing?

A He is wearing a brown jacket and a blue shirt.

MR. TRUSTER: May the record reflect the witness has

identified the defendant, James Scott Bauhaus.

THE COURT:So reflects.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Mrs. Hunt, I will ask you, please,

ma’am, on the 17th  of October, ’72, was the defendant wearing .

glasses that day?

A No, he was not.

Q. He did not have glasses on?

A No.

Q. Describe his appearance to you on the 17th of October

when he was standing about the distance you and I are apart?

A He was very light complected, black wavy hair, tall

and slim.

Q. Did he have any gloves on, ma’am? .

A No.

Q. Held the gun in his bare hand?

A Yes.

Q. Mrs. Hunt, let me ask you this, ma’am, after your

husband fell to the ground the defendant stepped over his body

and ran from your house; what did you then do?

A I called the operator and asked her to get the

police and an ambulance. .

Q.And did they ultimately arrive then?

A Shortly, yes.

Q. And what did you do for your husband at that time?

A I put a wet cloth on his head.

Q. Did he say anything? .

  A Nothing.

A. Did you check for his pulse or anything?

A No, I didn’t. .

Q. He never regained consciousness at all?

A. No.

Q. After the police arrived did you have an occasion to

observe the other rooms in your house?

A Yes, I did.

Q. What did you find when you made your observations?

AWell, they were ‑‑ we had two parrots, they were both dead..

Q.Two parrots?

A Yes, sir, a large one and a small one.

Q.They were both dead?

AYes, sir.

Q. Were they dead when you left the house that time in

the morning?

ANo, they weren’t.

Q. Where did you keep those parrots,

please, ma’am?

A In a cage sitting on the table in the kitchen.

Q. In the kitchen?

A Uh‑huh. .

Q. Have you had parrots a long time in your lifetime

or as pets?

A Well, we had had one of them quite awhile, oh, a year,

I guess, and the other one about six months.

Q. Did you see or observe anything as to the parrots

themselves,  ma’am, as to what might have caused their death?

I realize you are not a forensic pathologist in parrot deaths.

MR. WALLACE:I object to that.

THE COURT: She may make observations as a lay

person.

MR. WALLACE: I will object as irrelevant and

immaterial, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Did you have occasion to look at

your parrots closely?

A I didn’t pay that much attention to them, really.

Q. Do you have a gas range in there?

MR. WALLACE: I object to that as incompetent.

THE COURT:Overruled.

A Yes.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Did you smell gas when you got in

there?

A No.

Q.The parrots were dead?

  A Yes.

Q. Now, ma’am, what else did you observe other than the

dead parrots?

A The house had been ransacked. .

Q. The house was ransacked?

A Yes, sir. .

Q. Tell the Court and jury exactly what observations you

made in that respect?.

A Drawers had been pulled out and things dumped on the

floor, things such as this; bedspreads off the bed and that sort

of thing.

Q. Did you have jewelry on October 17th, ‘72?

A Costume was all.

Q. And where did you keep that, please, ma’am?

A it was in the bedroom.

Q. In the bedroom?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And by the way where is your bedroom located? Is

that an upstairs or single story?

A No, single. We had the bathroom here, bedroom there

and down here by the living room. And there was a door here and

one here, another one there.

Q. Ma’am, this bedroom, is this where you kept your

jewelry?

A Yes.

Q.Any particular place in the bedroom?

A No.

Q. How about the night stand, what did you keep in that?

MR. WALLACE: I object to that as leading. She

hasn’t testified anything was kept in the night stand.

. MR. TRUSTER: Earlier she testified the gun, State’s

Exhibit Number one was kept there.

THE COURT:overruled.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) What did you keep in the night stand,

please, ma’am?

A It’s just a small table and I think there was a few

magazines there and this gun, that is all.

Q. This is Mr. Hunt’s gun, State’s Exhibit Number One

was kept there loaded?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Had Mr. Hunt ever fired that weapon prior to October

17th, ma’am?

MR. WALLACE: I object to that unless he qualifies

as far as she knows. He may or may not have fired it outside

her presence.

MR. TRUSTER: That is what I am asking, if the

Court please.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Did you ever see your husband fire

lit prior to October 17th, 1972?

A Yes, sir, he had taken a few practice shots out of

town.

Q. Approximately when was that?

AApproximately two or three months before.

Q. Did you observe him reload it at that time?

A Yes, he did.

Q. He kept the gun loaded?

A Yes, he did.

Q. Ma’am, did you have an occasion to observe your back

door in the kitchen?

MR. WALLACE: If Mr. Truster would set a time and

place.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) On the 17th of October, 1972,

please, ma’am?

A When he went out the back door he broke the glass in

it. The storm door, there was a storm door there and it was

kind of hard to open so he broke the glass.

Q. Is your house located in Tulsa County? .

A Yes, sir.

MR. TRUSTER: No further questions. Thank you.

CROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Mrs. Hunt, would you state your address again for

me one more time, please, at the time October 17th, 19727

A 5145 East 24th Place.

Q. East 25th?

A24th,

Q. 24th. Thank you, ma’am. And you stated that you

resided there with who, ma’am?

A We have a daughter and a grandson that lived with us.

Q. Approximately how old is your daughter?

A She is 28.

Q. 28.  And how old is your grandson now?

A He is 14 now.

Q. 14. And how long have they resided with you, ma’am?

A Since they were born.

Q. Since they were born?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Since they were born did you reside in that residence,

ma’am?

A Oh, no.

Q. Now, you stated your husband owned a book store, ma’am,

is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And what type book store was that?

AAdult book store.

And by adult book store could you define that for me,

please, ma’am?

MR. TRUSTER: If it. please Your Honor, we will

stipulate and we told the jury yesterday it was a dirty book

store for whatever that is worth.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace). Mrs. Hunt, you stated Mr. Hunt kept

his gun loaded on his bedside table. Did he ever explain to you

why it was necessary for him to keep a gun loaded on his bedside

table?

ANo, he just said he wanted it there.

Q.  Now, you stated your daughter resides with you, is

that correct?

A Yes, sir.

And she works what hours again, please?

A At that time she worked at Bama Pie about four until

noon or two, whenever they got through.

Q. Did she ever have gentlemen callers to visit her.

in your residence, ma’am? .

A No, she hasn’t.

Q. Never at any time while you resided at 5145 East

25th Place ‑‑ 24th Place, excuse me. Ma’am, you stated what

time was it when you left your residence that day?

A Approximately 9:30 in the morning.

Q.In the morning?

A Uh‑huh.

Q.Who were you with at that time, please?

A My husband.

Q. And you stated you were the last individual to leave

your house?

A Yes.

Q. Did you check the doors to make sure they were locked?

A We always did, yes.

Q. Did you on this occasion?

A Yes, we did.

Q. Ma’am, did you have occasion on April 24th, 1974,

to testify in a preliminary hearing in this matter?

A Yes, I did.

Q. And on cross‑examination by myself did I ask you this

question and did you give this answer?

“And could you tell from the trouble and from later observa‑

tion and what you know of it yourself” ‑‑ referring to your back

door ‑‑ “whether that door was locked or unlocked?”

And you answered: “Well, it was supposed to have been

locked, truthfully.”

And I asked you: “Did you ever go and check it?”

And you responded: “No.” Was that your answer at that

time, ma’am?

A I  can’t ‑‑ must be, I can’t remember. .

Q. You can’t remember. Very good. Now, ma’am, you

stated that you had gone to Bordens for lunch that day, is

that correct?

  A Yes.

Q. And approximately what time was that?

AApproximately two.

Q. Now, is that the time that you arrived or that you

left Bordens?

A Arrived.

Q. Do you remember what you had for lunch there that

day, ma’am? .

ANo, I don’t.

Q. And approximately what time did you leave Bordens,

please?

A Approximately 2:30.

Q. Approximately 2:30. And how much time, as best you

can estimate, does it take you to drive from Bordens to your

residence?

A Oh, probably between five and ten minutes.

Q. Between five and ten minutes. So, approximately you

would arrive at your residence 2:40, would that be an approxi‑

mation?

AYes, sir.

Q. Now, do you have a driveway to your residence, ma’am?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Was your husband driving or were you driving?

A He was.

Q.Did he pull the car into the driveway?

A Yes, he did. .

Do you have a garage on your residence? .

A Yes.

Q. Did he pull into the garage?

A No.

Q. Just left it parked in the driveway?

AYes, sir.

Q. Was it yourself, ma’am, or was your husband the one

to unlock the front door to your residence?

A He did.

Q. Upon approaching your house did you at any time notice

any sounds, hear anything, notice any movements that would

alert you to any action inside your house?

A No.

Q. Now, ma’am, excuse me, one more time who opened the

front door, was it you?

A No, my husband.

Q. 4 Your husband. Was the front door locked at that

time, ma’am?

A Yes, it was.

Q. Now, you have stated this is a diagram essentially.

For the people on the end of the jury, this is the front door

to your house, is that correct, ma’am?

  AYes, sir.

Q.And this is a short hallway?

A Yes.

Q. And what is in this space right here, ma’am?

A Closets, heating system and so forth.

Q. So this is a wall running right here?

A Yes.

Q.Would you point for me, please, where you first

observed this young man, where you first noticed him when you

came in the house?

A He was standing right here in the corner of the

dining room.

Q. Now, is that essentially in an alcove, is there a

corner there? Is it openly visible from the front door?

  A No.

Q. Who went through the front door first, ma’am?

A My husband did.

Q. Your husband did. And did you come in right behind

him?

A. Yes, right behind him.

Q. Approximately how far?

A. Oh, just a step or two.

Q.When you first stepped in the front door, ma’am,

did you observe anybody at that time?

A No, not when we first stepped in, no.

Q. Now, you stated this gentleman that you saw was standing back in the corner,

is that correct?

A . Yes, sir.

Q. And your husband had entered the dining room to put

his keys and stuff on the dining room table?

AYes, sir.

Q. Did your husband ever get close enough to this gentle‑

man to touch him?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. He did get close enough to touch him.    Ma’am, calling

your attention again to the preliminary hearing in this matter

on April 24th, 1974 did you have occasion to testify in that matter?

A. Yes.

And on cross‑examination were these questions and

answers given?  Question by myself:  “Did your husband ever get

close enough to touch this man?”

And your answer was: “No, there wasn’t time, this happened

so quick.”

A He was close enough. Whether he touched him or not,

I don’t know.

Q. What I am asking, was this question asked of you and

was this answer given at that time?

A Yes.

Q. Now, would you repeat your testimony for me here

today, please, ma’am? I am confused, at the preliminary hearing

you told me that this all happened so quickly that he never had

time.

MR. TRUSTER: Excuse me, I object to that,

that is improper. Your Honor.

THE COURT: You can propound the question and

the jury then, of course, may make the determination.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Very well. Ma’am, would you tell

me whether your testimony at the preliminary hearing is correct

or your testimony here today is correct?

A He was close to him.

Q. Well, my question was did he ever get close enough

to touch him?

A Yes, he was close enough to touch him.

Q. So your testimony here today is correct as opposed to

your testimony at the preliminary hearing?

A Yes.

A Very good, ma’am, thank you. Now, ma’am, as your

husband went through the open way into the dining room you were

behind him at that time, is that correct?

AYes, sir.

Q. Did he make any response to this young man before the

young man was really visible to you? If I may explain to you

what I mean. If you were behind him did you notice him make

any physical reaction before this man was actually visible to

you?

AYes, he noticed him before I did, yes.

Q. So he was ahead of you by a step or two?

AA step or two, yes.

Q. Now, ma’am, as you entered the dining room what was

the initial reaction of your husband?

A Well, he seemed startled and then he turned toward the

boy and asked him to give him the gun.

Q. He moved toward this boy?

A Yes.

Q. Now, once again you stated today that he did touch

this man?

AHe was close enough.

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, asked and answered. I

will withdraw it.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) . You may answer the question.

A He was close enough; whether he touched him or not I

don’t know.

Q. You don’t actually know whether he did touch him or

not?

A No.

Q. Now, ma’am, by this time as your husband turned toward

this man and moved toward him had you entered the dining room,

the actual dining room?

A Yes.

Q. Would you tell me, ma’am, please, what the first thing

you noticed about this gentleman was that was standing in the

corner?

A I  noticed the gun in his hand, yes.

Q. Did you notice what color it was at that time?

A What Color?

Q.  Yes, ma’am, what color the pistol was as it sits here

today and you have previously identified State’s Exhibit One

as the pistol belonging to your husband. Upon observation

of it did you observe what color it was?

A No, I wasn’t thinking about the color.

Q. What was it, did you recognize it as your husband’s

gun?

ANot really at that time.

Q. At that time you did not really. Okay. Do you know

what type gun this is, ma’am?

A It’s a .22.

Q. And that is a pistol, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q. Now, ma’am, you stated that your husband stepped

toward this man and did he say anything to this man at the time?

A. He asked him to give him the gun.

Q. And did the man respond anything to him?

A No, he didn’t.

Q. Now, ma’am, if you would please would you tell me

where your attention was directed as your husband stepped toward

this man?

A At my husband.

Q. Okay. You stated as he moved toward this man the gun

went off, is that correct?

AYes, sir.

Q. Did he fall at that time?

A Yes, he did.

Q. I know this is a touchy subject, ma’am, I don’t mean

to be badgering you but upon the gunshot did he fall immediately?

A Yes, he did.

Q. And did you observe any blood about your husband at

that time?

ANo, not at the moment.

Q. Ma’am, would you tell me and the jury, please, how

you reacted upon hearing this gunshot?

A Well, I was scared.

Q. Okay. And would you tell me, please, also how you

reacted when you observed your husband fall to the floor?

Would you have been in shock, ma’am, was this a shock to you?

A Yes, it was.

Q. Was it upsetting?

AOf course.

Q. That is very understandable and I don’t mean to pick

on you. Now, you stated that this man in the dining room was

holding the gun, is that correct? In which hand, please?

A Right.

Q. In his right hand?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Did you notice anything distinguishing about his

hands, any jewelry, ma’am?

A No, I didn’t notice.

Q.Any scars or tattoos?

A No, I didn’t notice.

Q. Did you notice whether he had any gloves on or not?

A He didn’t.

Q. He didn’t have any gloves on? .

A No.

Q. After this gun went off you stated this gentleman

dropped the gun, is that correct, ma’am?

A Yes, Sir.

Q. And he stepped over your husband at that time?

A Yes.

Q. If you would, please, indicate for the Court and

jury which direction he headed at that time after he had stepped

over your husband?

A He was there in the corner, he stepped up, this would

be the table right there, he stopped for a few seconds right

there and made a run for the back door in the kitchen.

Q. This is the back door in the kitchen?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Is the back door visible from where you were in the

dining room at that moment?

A Yes.

Q. Now, at this time can you tell me what the man had

on?

A All I can recall is dark pants and a light shirt.

Q. Dark pants and a light shirt. Do you remember if he

had any type of jacket on?

A No, I can’t recall.

Q.  Do you remember if he had a mustache?

A. No mustache, no.

Q. Do you remember whether his shirt was long sleeve or

short sleeve?

A No.

Q. You don’t remember.  Do you remember any scars or

tattoos on his arms?

A. No.

Q. You don’t remember?

A No.

Q. Now, you stated as your husband turned to take the

gun from this man it went off and your husband fell to the floor,

is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q. The man dropped the gun, stepped over your husband,

headed for the back door?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Did the police subsequently to their investigation or

during their investigation come and take this gun?

  A Yes.

4 Did you handle this gun at any time before the police

arrived ma’am?

A No, I don’t think so.

Thank you. Ma’am, will you tell me, please, did

you attempt to stop your husband in any way as he moved toward

this man?

A No, I didn’t. .

Q. Would you tell me why, please?

A It never occurred to me.

Q. Can you tell me how much time had elapsed between the

time of his entering the dining room and the shot?

A Oh, not more than a minute or two.

Q. A minute or two?

AIf that long.

Q.A minute or two is your testimony?..

A. Uh‑huh.

Q. Ma’am, in your previous testimony at the preliminary

hearing on April 24th in this matter do you remember if this

question was asked of you and this answer given?

“Approximately how long in your household on the day

October 17th, 1972, approximately how much time had expired from

the time you observed this man until he went from your sight

through the back door?” .

And your answer was:   “oh, just a few seconds.” Was that

your testimony at that time, ma’am?

A Yes.

Q. Now, is this testimony today correct at trial, the

testimony of a minute or two or is your testimony correct at the

preliminary hearing of just a few seconds?

A. Well, when I observed him he stepped in front of the

table, it was only a few seconds.

Q. Well, the question ‑‑ okay. Ma’am, you stated this

man went to the back door, is that correct?

AYes, sir.

Q. And what type of door is on your backdoor?

A. Well, it had a storm door there.

Q. And does the latch on the storm door, as the latch

on every storm door ever made, occasionally hang up?

A Yes, it does.

Q. Could you tell from the sound of this man negotiating

or attempting to negotiate the back door whether the door was

actually locked or not?

A No, he had tried to open it and couldn’t so he broke

the glass.

Q. And did you observe what he broke the glass with?

A No, I didn’t.

Q. On later observation of that back door did you observe

any blood upon it?

A I didn’t notice.

Q. Now, ma’am, will you tell me where your attention was

directed as this man went for the back door?

A Well, I went to get a cloth to put on my husband’s

head and went to use the phone.

Q. You went to get a cloth to put on your husband?

A Yes.

Q. Would you point to the jury, please, where you went to

get a cloth from?

A In the dining room, the sink in this area.

Q. You have a sink in this area?

A Yes.

Q. This was after the man had left from the back door,

is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. At the time, ma’am, did you notice any blood on the

door, the storm door or the back window?

A No.

Q. You didn’t observe what this man broke the window with’.

A No.

Q. Ma’am, was your attention directed basically to your

husband at this time?

A Yes, it was.

Q. Ma’am, do you know if the police took this gun and

processed, I mean disregarding the fact it’s now State’s

evidence, to your own personal knowledge did you observe the

police take this gun from your residence?

A. Did I see them?

Q. Yes, ma’am.

A. No.

Q. Did you know of your own personal knowledge whether

they ever came out and dusted for fingerprints in your house?

AYes, they did.

Q. Did they ever communicate the results of any of those

tests to you?

A No.

Q. Do you know also, ma’am, if they took fingerprints

from the storm door, if they dusted it for fingerprints?

A No.

Q. Do you know if they took blood samples from the back

door?

A No.

Q. Ma’am, approximately how long after you got hold of the

operator did the police arrive?

A Oh, it seemed like a short time. I couldn’t tell you

exactly.

Q. Were the police first to arrive upon the scene?

A Yes.

Q. And did an ambulance subsequently arrive, after the

police did an ambulance arrive? . .

A You know I never did notice.

Q. Do you know, ma’am, how your husband was taken to the

hospital?

A No, I left before.

Q. You left before your husband was taken to the hospital?

A Yes.

Q. Weren’t you interested in his welfare at this time,

ma’am?

A The police had asked me to leave.

Q. The police had asked you to leave?

A Yes.

Q. Did you ever take his pulse, Mrs. Hunt?

A No, I didn’t.

Q. Would you tell me what you did with this wet cloth or

wet ‑towel you got?

AI put it on his forehead.

Q. On his forehead. Could you tell from observing him

at that time where he was bleeding from?

A No, .I couldn’t.

Q. Did you notice any blood at all?

A. Not it that time.

Q. Ma’am, the path that this man took from your dining

room to your kitchen, did he pick up any other articles on the

way out that back door?

A No, he didn’t.

Q. On observation of your house afterwards did you

notice any articles of yours that were gathered up?

AYes.

Q. And would you state for me what those were,  please, to

the best of your memory?

A. I don’t remember, it was just costume jewelry.

Q.Just costume jewelry?

A.Uh‑huh.

Q. Did you observe that at the time you entered the

house, ma’am?  Were all of these articles together, were they

just in a pile in the floor?

A. On a pillow case.

Q. Put together in a pillow case?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you observe that in the dining room or kitchen

area of your house that day? 

A No, they were in the living room.

Q. They were in the living room. Did the police, during

their investigation, come and take that pillow case with all of

those goods?

A Yes.

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether

they ran fingerprint tests on those goods?

A I don’t know.

Q. Ma’am, now where does this back door from your kitchen

area lead, please?

A The back yard.

Q.Is your back yard enclosed?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Can you give us an idea, ma’am, do you have any idea

of the dimensions of the back yard?

A No.

Q.In regard to feet you don’t?

AI don’t know.

Q. Ma’am, did you ever see this man after he left through

the storm door, did you ever see where he went from there?

A No, I didn’t.

Q. Would you state for me again, please, the date that

this occurred?

AOctober 17th, 1972.

Q. Okay. Ma’am, would you state for me, please, the

name of your grandson’s school?

A. It’s there about Pine and Madison, I can’t recall the

name of it.

Q. How long has he attended that school?

A He went there about a year.

Q. Ma’ am, do you remember as this transpired, you stated

I believe this man had dark pants and a light shirt on, is that

correct, to the best of your recollection?

A Yes.

Q. Do you remember what type of shirt he had on?

A No, I don’t.

Q. Do you remember this question and this answer being

given at the preliminary hearing?

Question by myself: “Do you remember whether they were

blue jeans or slacks?”

Your response was: “I don’t remember, except there was a

slipover shirt.” Do you remember giving that testimony at that

time?

A Yes, I guess it was a slipover. .

Q. Is that correct, now, ma’am?

AThe best I can recall, yes.

Q. Do you remember if he had any type jacket on?

A No, I don’t recall.

Q. Do you remember if his pants had any type plaid or

were they a solid color?

AI believe they were solid.

Q. You believe they were solid.

A I was looking at his face more than his clothes.

Q.Did you observe his shoes?

A No.

Q.Did you observe his belt?

A No.

Q. Now, would you state for me, please, ma’am, where you

were positioned as this man stepped over your husband?

A I was right by the door, the opening there to the

dining room.

Q. And as this man stepped over your husband were you

standing at that time?

A Yes.

Q. And how tall are you, ma’am?

A Five one.

Q. Five one. Did you ever notice the color of his eyes?

AOther than they were light.

Q.They were light?

A. Uh‑huh.

Q. Okay. Did this man have a beard?

A No.

Q. And you stated he did not have glasses on at the time?

A No, he didn’t.

Q. Do you remember any distinguishing features of his

face such as scars?

A No.

Q.  Tattoos?

A No.

Q. Now, is your testimony no, there weren’t any or no,

you don’t remember?

A As far as I know there weren’t any.

Q. Would you state for me, ma’am, the date that you

subsequently identified Mr. Bauhaus as the man that was in

your house that day?

A I don’t remember the date.

Q. You don’t remember the date?

A No.

Q. Do you remember what he was wearing that day?

A No.

Q. Do you remember if he had glasses on that day?

A. No, he didn’t.

Q. Do you remember any other distinguishing marks about

his hands, any tattoos, scars?

A No.

Q. Do you remember what color shirt he had on?

A No.

Q. Do you remember what color pants he had on?

A No.

Q. So the basis of your identification, ma’am, is based

upon these few seconds that transpired in your house in October,

is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you for the jury relate one more time approximately

how long you believe this session of time was?

A Just a few seconds.

Q. Just a few seconds?

A Yes, sir.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. I believe that is

all I have, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. Mrs. Hunt, you said on cross‑examination that your

concentration was directed at the face of the defendant, is that

correct?

A Yes, sir.

MR. TRUSTER: Come here, Mr. Bauhaus.

MR. WALLACE: I would object to this, Your honor,

Mr. Bauhaus is seated here.

MR. TRUSTER: We would request the Court and the

case law allows the State to ask the defendant to come forward.

THE COURT: I will permit it if it is for the

purpose of identification and not for some type of demonstration.

MR. TRUSTER: No. Come here, Mr. Bauhaus. Take

off your glasses. Stand right there.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Now, ma’am, Mrs. Hunt, look at

this person today and is this about the same distance that you

had an occasion to observe him on October 17th, ’72?

A Yes, sir.

MR. WALLACE: I would object to what is about

the same, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will overrule as to distance.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) You earlier said about three feet,

did you not, ma’am?

A Yes.

Q. And this is the same distance that you had a chance to

observe him for those few seconds when he stepped over the body

of your dead husband, is that right?

A Yes, sir.

  Q. Now, tell this Court and jury, please, ma’am, if

there is any doubt, any doubt whatsoever that this man is not

the same person that fired the shot?

MR. WALLACE: I object to that as invading the

province of the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, it’s their determina‑

tion as to whether there is any doubt in her testimony?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Is there any doubt, please, ma’am,

that this is not the same person that fired the gun that killed

your husband on October 17th, 1972?

A No doubt at all.

MR. TRUSTER: Thank you, ma’am. No further

questions. Sit down, Mr. Bauhaus, if you will.

RECROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Mrs. Hunt, you stated you don’t remember what color

shirt he had on?

A No.

Q. You don’t remember what color pants he had on, you don’t

remember if he had a long sleeve shirt or short sleeve shirt?

A. No.

Q. Five seconds, is that right, total time this trans‑

pired from the time you walked into your house until the time

he went out the back door. And when did this event occur?

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, improper recross‑

examination.

THE COURT: It is repetitious, counsel.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Now, you

stated or I believe Mr. Truster stated you were a step or two away from this man at the

time of the shooting. On direct examination didn’t you state

you were three or four steps away?

MR. TRUSTER: Counsel is confusing the issue.

That was at the time that he stepped over the dead body, please,

sir.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Truster didn’t make it clear

when he was referring to.

THE COURT: I will permit examination.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Did you not on direct examination

say you were three or four steps away?

A When we first entered the house, yes.

Q. Now, in five seconds from three or four steps away.

when you have testified your attention was directed to your

husband and the gun, you can say almost 18 months later that

there is no doubt in your mind whatsoever that this young man is

the man?

A. That’s right.

Q. Do you remember what color tie Mr. Bauhaus has on

today, ma’am?

MR. TRUSTER: Object to that as improper

recross.

MR. WALLACE: Hardly, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It goes to identification or

observation.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Can you tell me what color tie he

has on?

A Dark.

Q.Is it patterned or solid?

A Patterned.

Q.What type pattern?

A I don’t know.

Q. Do you know what color shirt he has on?

A Navy blue, I think.

Q. Do you know what color pants he has on?

A No, I don’t know.

Q.Do you know what color his eyes are?

A Blue.

4 Mrs. Hunt, did you observe what this man broke this

back door with?

A No, I didn’t.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. I believe that is all

I have.

MR. TRUSTER: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: The witness may step down.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will recess for lunch and

you will be directed to report back at 1:30. Bear in mind

the admonition of the Court not to talk to anyone about the

case or to permit anyone to talk to you. Don’t read about it

or hear about it, don’t form any conclusions about it. You are

excused until 1:30.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had in chambers.)

MR. WALLACE: Comes now the defendant, James

Scott Bauhaus, in the matter pending here on trial in case

number CRF‑73‑24, by and through his attorney of record, James

Wallace, and formally at this time files a written motion for

mistrial based upon the grounds that the Court erred in over‑

ruling my objection to allow the defendant to be exhibited in

front of the jury approximately two feet from the witness. This

was highly prejudicial and against the defendant’s Fifth

Amendment  rights under the Constitution of the United States

against self‑incrimination. Further defendant would move to

strike and have the jury admonished. The in Court identifica‑

tion tendered by Mrs. Hunt is prejudiced by this exhibit of

the witness and is tainted thereby.

THE COURT: Motion denied, exception is

allowed.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

(Thereafter, the State of Oklahoma appearing by Jerry

Truster; the defendant appearing in person and by and through

his counsel, James E. Wallace, the following proceedings were

had in open court and before the jury.)

THE COURT: I would inquire of the jurors

if they have received any information about the case? Have you ,

read anything about it?  Has anyone attempted to contact you

about the case in any way? Have you made any independent

investigation about what purports to be the facts? Have you

formed your conclusions about the ultimate outcome?

The State may proceed.

MR. TRUSTER: Thank you, Your Honor. The State

would call Mrs. Jack Baker at this time.

THE COURT: Come forward, ma’am, and raise your

right band to be sworn:  Do you solemnly swear the testimony you

are about to give in the cause now on trial will be the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Now, after your testimony you are

not allowed to discuss your testimony with any of the other

witnesses until after the conclusion of the trial. You may

answer any questions directed to you by counsel, however, if

you desire.

MRS. JACK BAKER,

called as a witness on behalf of the State, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. State your name for the Court, record and jury, .

please, ma’am?

A Mrs. Jack Baker.

Q. Ma’am, where do you live?

A 5941 East 28th Street.

Q. Do you work?

A I do now.

  Q. And whom do you work for?

A American Christian College.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, do you know a person

by the name of Mrs. Hunt?

A I have just met her recently.

Q. On the 17th day of October, directing your attention

to that date, 1972, ma’am, I will ask you if anything unusual

happened to you on that particular day?

  A Yes.

Q. And about what time of the day or night did this

thing take place?

AAbout 2:30 in the afternoon.

Q. Where were you at that time, please, ma’am?

A I was sitting in front of Hoover School at 24th and

Darlington waiting for my son to be let out of school at 3:00

o’clock.

Q. Now, are you sure that it was exactly 2:30 or were you

wearing a watch or was it approximately?

A No, I left the house around 2:30 so it only takes me

about five minutes to get there.

Q. And you say you were seated in your car awaiting for

your son to get out of school? . .

A I was what?

Q. You were seated in your car waiting for your son to

get out of school?

A Yes.

Q. And where was this, please, ma’am?

A At 24th and Darlington.

Q. 24th and Darlington?.

A Facing south.

Q. Was anyone else with you in the car?

A No, Sir.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, what did you observe

on that October 17th, 1972?

A. Well, O was sitting there in the car reading one of

my mystery books and I happened to look up and I saw a kid

running down the street and he looked like a basketball player

and my attention didn’t drop until he crossed 24th Street and

so I happened to look up as he crossed 24th; as I looked back

I looked to see what he was wearing and looked to see whether

he was running or jogging; I said, well, he wasn’t one of those

Nathan Hale kids that, you know, he was just running awful hard

and he kept looking at his left arm off and on.

Q. He kept looking at his left arm. In What manner,

please,   ma’am?

A Every once in awhile like this and I thought he

had a wristwatch on and he was looking at the time that he had

to meet somebody.

Q. Did you see a wristwatch on him? 

A No, sir, but I just gathered.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, how far away were you

from this person that you observed running out there in front

of Hoover Elementary School?

A The sidewalk runs right past the car and I was at the

curb.

Q. In feet what would be your best estimate of that,

please, ma’am?

A Well, it’s not very far, I don’t know how many feet.

Q. Do you recall how this person was dressed?

AYes.

Q. And tell the Court and jury how he was dressed?

  A He had on a gray short sleeved shirt, buttoned

down the front, looks like Sears only there was no monogram on

the pocket, tan jeans, kind of khaki looking color only they

weren’t dark, tan and dirty white tennis shoes.

Q. Did you observe whether or not he was wearing a

jacket of any type?

A No, sir, it was hot and he was running.

Q. Now, how was he running, please, ma’am?

A He was running hard, he wasn’t jogging.

Q. He wasn’t jogging?.

ANo, sir.

Q. Had you observed other persons out there in that

neighborhood jog before?

A No ‑‑ they have run across the school grounds and you

know, run down the slopes but this was on the sidewalk.

Q. All right. You say he was running hard?

  A Yes.

Q. How long did you observe him, please, ma’am?

A Just as he got from 24th Street past my car which was

at 24th and Darlington to just about not quite 23rd and

Darlington. I looked back, that is when I looked back to see

whether he was running or jogging and then I just went back to

my business.

Q. Was he still running when you looked back?

A He was still running and I didn’t pay any more atten‑

tion, I just sat there.

Q. Did you see if he ran to any particular location or did

you notice?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, ma’am, this person that you saw, how old was he

in your best estimate?

A I would say he was 18, 19, 20 years old.

Q.He was not an elementary student then?

ANo, sir.

Q. Now, ma’am, did you get a look at his full face?

A No, sir, not the full face.

Q. What portion of his face did you see?

A The side view, well, not the driver’s side but the

other side, the side facing the sidewalk.

Q. Now, you were seated in the driver’s side?

AI was seated in the driver’s side.

Q. When he passed your car in which direction was he,

running in relation to your car?

AHe was running north.

Q. Would that be from the front of your car to the rear

of your car?

A Yes, from the front of my car to the rear and that’s

when I looked back to see whether he was running or jogging

then,

Q. And you looked out the passenger side?

A. Well, no, I looked back through my back window.

Q. Headed down towards ‑‑

A Down toward 23rd and Darlington but I never looked to

see whether he reached 23rd and Darlington.

Q. Ma’am, you said you looked at his side, that would

probably be his right side that you saw, he was running in that

direction?

A Yes, I was facing on the driver’s side.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, to look around the

courtroom today and see if you see that person present in court

today that you saw running at that location in Tulsa County on

the 17th day of October, 1972?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Where is he seated and what is he wearing? 

A He is wearing a tan sport coat right now and necktie

and dark shirt.

MR. TRUSTER: May the record reflect the witness

has identified the defendant, James Scott Bauhaus, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So reflects.

MR. TRUSTER: I have no further questions, Your

Honor.

CROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Mrs. Baker, would you state for me again, please,

what time this was in the afternoon?

A I left my house about 2:30 and I got there about

five till 3:00 ‑‑ I mean 25 till 3:00 and  was just sitting

there in my car reading and it was between that time and 3:00

o’clock that he ran past my car, I don’t know exactly what

time.

Q. Approximately 2:35 though to the best of your recol‑

lection?

A Yes.

Q. Okay. And you stated you were parked on 24th Street,

is that correct?

A 24th and Darlington.

Q.On the corner?

A Right on the corner where the kids come out of the

school.

Q.Which way were you facing, please, ma’am?

A. South.

Q. You stated you were reading one of your mystery books

at this time?

A Yes.

Q. Do you remember what mystery book that was?

A. No, because I read a lot of Gothic novels.

Q. Can you state to me, ma’am, where the man was with

relation to your car when you first observed him?

A He was running down north hard on that sidewalk.

Q. Had he come by your car when you first noticed him?

A Yes, he was still on that sidewalk going past my car.

Q. You were seated on the driver’s side?

A Yes.

  Q. Observing out the passenger side window?

A No, not the passenger side window, the back window

of my car. You know, there is a back window and I didn’t look

out the rear view mirror I looked out the back.

Q. You didn’t observe straight through the passenger

side window?

A A little bit but when I looked back to see if he was

running or jogging is when I looked back through my back window.

Q. And he was heading from the front of your car ‑‑

AToward the back.

Q. Toward the rear and you observed the side of his face,

ma’am, is that your testimony?

A Yes.

Q. Would you state for me again, please, what he had on?

A He had on a gray short sleeved shirt like Sears, it

was buttoned down the front, there was no monogram on the

pocket, he had on tan khaki jeans, they were light tan and

dirty white tennis shoes.

Q. Now, you stated this man looked like a basketball

player?

A Yes, he was about that tall, I am just going by how

tall, that is what I average a basket‑‑

Q. As tall as a basketball player, that is your recol‑

lection?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Did he seem in your opinion to be running, was he

moving quite quickly? .

A Yes, he was running quickly, he was running hard, his

cheeks were flushed.

Q. So your testimony is then, ma’am, that you observed,

you looked to the side out the rear passenger side window and

observed this man as he ran past you?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And you saw the side of his face?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And based upon that, ma’am, you can make a positive

identification at this time of this young man?

A Without the glasses I can, there were no glasses.

Q. Okay. Do you remember having a conversation with me

Saturday, ma’am, when I called you on the telephone?

A Yes, you called me Saturday evening.

Q. Did I ask you at that time, ma’am ‑‑

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is for the purpose of impeach‑

ment of the witness’ statement on the stand?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I will permit it.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Did you at that time, ma’am, tell

me you would not be able to identify him again if you should

see him?

A No, sir, I didn’t tell you. I couldn’t tell you

very much information any more than I give the policeman.

Q. Didn’t I ask you, ma’am, if you could identify him?

A I don’t remember you asking me that.

Q. Then it’s your testimony of your observation of this

man who is toward the rear of your car that you could observe

out the back window, moving behind you, that you could positively

make an identification of this young man based on the rear side

of his head as he ran away from you?

A He has a cleft in his chin and his cheeks were

flushed.

Q Have you ever seen anybody else, ma’am, that had a

cleft in their chin?

A Not a deep one.

Q. Have you ever seen Kirk Douglas in movies, ma’am?

A No, I don’t watch much TV.

Q. You are not familiar with Kirk Douglas at all,  You

have stated on direct examination that it was hot in October.

Do you remember approximately how warm it was?

A Oh, I would say it was in the 70’s, probably. It

wasn’t cool enough for the air conditioner, wasn’t hot enough

for the heater ‑‑ I mean cold enough for the heater and hot

enough for the air conditioner.

Q. Do you remember where you had been previously right

before you went to pick up your son from school, ma’am?

A I was home.

Q. Did you pick up your son from school that day?

A I did.

Q. Did you say anything to him about this young man

running at that time?

A No.

Q. Why was that?

A I was too shook up. .

Q. Why were you shook up?

A Because all of this had happened and I didn’t know it

happened and the policeman came around asking me questions and

I just ‑‑ it was a lot to bear up under and I didn’t know

anything had happened.

Q. Was that the same day, ma’am?

A That was the same day.

Q. After you picked up your son did you go straight home?

A No, I took him to the bowling alley. He had to bowl and

I did not talk to anybody there, I had to keep score.

Q. Do you remember what day of the week that was, ma’am?

A That was that same day, Tuesday. They bowled on

Tuesday nights ‑‑ Tuesday evenings.

Q. Tuesday evenings?

A Well, right after school.

Q. Have you discussed any of your testimony today here

with Mrs. Hunt, ma’am?

A No, Sir.

Q. Have you discussed any of your testimony here today

with anybody?

A No, sir.

Q. And you were seated on the driver’s side of your car,

is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And observed this man from the side through your

rear passenger window?

A Yes.

Q. Can you give me an estimate of how long you had to

observe the side of this young man’s face?

A I just observed it as he went, I observed it as he

went past the car through the side that my window was closed

and that’s how I noticed his dark curly wavy hair and he kept

looking at his arm, and his deep cleft in his chin, and he kept

running and I didn’t pay any attention.

Q. You say he kept looking at his left arm? Did you draw

any conclusions as to why he was looking at his arm?

A No, I just gathered he had a wristwatch on; he had

to meet somebody at a certain time.

Q. Could you tell if he had a wristwatch on?

  A No, sir.

Q. You couldn’t. Did he have a long sleeve or a short

sleeve shirt?

A Short sleeve.

Q. Short sleeve shirt. Approximately four to eight feet

away from you?

A It wasn’t very far.

Q. But would that be a fair estimate?

A I was at the curbs just a little grass and sidewalk.

Q. Would that be a fair estimate from the position in

the driver’s seat in your car to the sidewalk, approximately six

to eight feet?

A I wasn’t very far, I don’t know about how many feet

it was.

Q. Okay. Now, you have stated to the Court, ma’am, that

this is the young man you saw running. You are testifying that

you at this time can make a positive identification but you

couldn’t tell whether he had a wristwatch on or not but he did

have a short sleeved shirt on?

A Yes, he kept looking at his arm constantly and I

just gathered he had a wristwatch on and he was looking down at

it.

Q. was he looking down at his arm?

A No, he kept raising it up.

Q. And approximately how far was his arm from his face?

A Not very far because he kept doing like this

(indicating).

Q. His arm was that close to his face and you couldn’t

tell?

A No, he kept doing like this, he was running hard, he

kept lifting it up.

Q. His arm was within the same vicinity as the rest of

his general body, I assume, is that correct?

A Yes, but he kept raising it up every so often.

Q. You could see from the side of his face that he had

a cleft in his chin but you couldn’t tell whether he had a

wristwatch on or not?

A No, because this arm was the one he kept raising up.

I didn’t pay any attention to whether he had a wristwatch on

or not, I just gathered that is what he had on and he kept

looking to see what time he had to meet somebody.

Q. He had a short sleeve shirt on?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Would you explain for me, please, what you mean he

looked like a basketball player?

A His height.

Q. As tall as a basketball player?

AYes, sir.

Q. Did he have a short sleeve shirt on?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Gray in color is your testimony?

A Yes.

Q. And the color of his pants one more time, please?

ATan, khaki jeans.

MR. WALLACE: Very good. Thank you, ma’am.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. Ma’am, could you tell whether or not Mr. Bauhaus’

arm was cut?

A. I couldn’t at that time, sir.

MR. TRUSTER: We would request this witness be

allowed to view Mr. Bauhaus without his glasses from a side

view at this time, Your Honor.

MR. WALLACE: To which we would object, Your

Honor. Mr. Bauhaus is not in evidence. He was seated in the

courtroom. I believe that would be contradictory.

THE COURT: Since she has made a positive

identification I will sustain the objection.

MR. TRUSTER: We would request at this time,

Mr. Bauhaus stand up.

MR. WALLACE:   We would object to that also,

Your Honor, he is sitting here in plain view of everybody in

the courtroom.

MR. TRUSTER: Counsel seems to make a great

issue of the height and brought it out in his cross‑examination.

THE COURT: I will permit the defendant to

stand.

MR. WALLACE: We would object to the same as

offering Mr. Bauhaus as evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled and exception allowed.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: You may stand up.

(By Mr. Truster) Mrs. Baker, take a look at Mr.

Bauhaus and tell the Court and jury if there is any doubt in

your mind ‑‑ let me ask you this, does he look like a basketball

player to you?

A Yes, because they are slender and built that tall.

Q. Ma’am, I will ask you this, is there any doubt in your.

mind whatsoever that that man is not the same person that you saw

running that day?

MR. WALLACE: I object to that, that is the

province of the jury to decide.

THE COURT: As far as the definiteness of the

witness, overruled.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Now, ma’am, any doubt in your mind?

A. No, without the glasses that is him.

MR. TRUSTER: We would ask he take off the

glasses. 

MR. WALLACE: To which we would object, Your

Honor.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Now, ma’am, any doubt in your

mind?

A No.

Q. That is the man?

A That’s the man.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: Allowed.

MR. WALLACE: May we approach the bench.

(A conference was held at the bench and thereafter the

following proceedings were had before the jury.)

RECROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Mrs. Baker, do you see a cleft in Mr. Bauhaus’ chin?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Now, my interpretation of a cleft is in the immediate

chin, is that not the same as yours?

A Yes.

Q. You do see a cleft in his chin?

A Yes, but his is deeper than yours.

Q. Now, I am referring to this?

A Right in here.

Q. Immediate base of the chin?

A Right in here it is deeper than yours.

Q. You are referring to the area below the lip as

opposed ‑‑

ARight in here.

Q. Do you know the difference between a shadow and what

appears to be whiskers or 5:00 o’clock shadow?

A No, there wasn’t any of that.

Q. What I am stating, if you will look at Mr. Bauhaus

I believe what you are referring to is the outline of his

beard or his whiskers on his face?

A He was shaved, he didn’t have any whiskers then.

Q. I don’t believe you understand what I am asking

you, ma’am. What I am saying ‑‑

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, I am going to object,

counsel has asked the question.

THE COURT: I will give him latitude.

Apparently the witness doesn’t understand the

question that counsel is propounding.

MR. TRUSTER: I am not sure I understand it

either, Judge.

THE COURT: All right, I will give you an

opportunity.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Ma’am, I am saying can you

readily recognize the difference between what appears to be a

shadow in this area as opposed to a beard, not an actual beard

but the appearance of hair on the face, a thick beard or dark

hair in that area?

A Yes, because I know when my husband has shaved and

when he isn’t shaved.

Q. Do you at certain times after your husband has not

shaved notice a dark shadow in that area?

A Yes.

MR. WALLACE: I believe that is all.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. Ma’am, cleft is cleft to you and does Mr. Bauhaus have

a cleft?

A Right in here.

Q.The same cleft he had on October 17th of 1972?

MR. WALLACE: I object to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. WALLACE:May we approach the bench?

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had at the

bench.)

MR. WALLACE: Comes now the defendant, James

Scott Bauhaus, and moves for a mistrial on the highly prejudicial

statement made by Mr. Truster,.into evidence of Mr. Bauhaus having

the same cleft as he had on October 17, 1972, which invades

the province of the jury and is so extremely prejudicial that

Mr. Bauhaus would be denied the right to a fair trial at this

point.

THE COURT: Motion denied, exception allowed.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had before the

  jury.)

THE COURT:Anything further?

MR. WALLACE: I have nothing further, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: The witness may be excused unless

she is needed for further questioning.

MR. TRUSTER: The witness may be excused as far

as the State is concerned.

THE COURT: Do you solemnly swear the testimony

you are about to give in the cause now on trial will be the

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you

God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

D. A. ROBERTS,

called as a witness on behalf of the State, testified as follows

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. State your name for the Court, record and jury, please,

sir?

A D. A. Roberts.

Q. What is your business, profession or occupation?

A Police officer, City of Tulsa.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A Eleven and a half years.

Q. Are you assigned to a particular division?

AHomicide investigator.

Q. I will ask you, please, sir, did you have an occasion on

or about October 17th or 18th to go to the office of Doctor

Robert Fogel?

A Yes, I did.

Q. What was your purpose for going there, please, sir?

A To pick up a projectile that he had removed during

an autopsy.

Q. And did you pick up the projectile that Doctor Fogel

had removed?

A Yes, sir, I did. . .

Q. And I will ask you, please, sir, do you have that slug

here present today?

A Yes, I do.

Q. Would you take it from your envelope that you have

in your custody? I will ask you, please, sir, to look at that

and tell the Court and jury if it is marked in any way?

A Yes, at the time I received it from Doctor Fogel right

on the very base end of the bullet there is an F inscribed on

the bullet on the copper jacket.

What did you do with that slug, Detective Roberts?

A I took it to the Tulsa Police Department property

room and turned it in on property receipt number 3945.

MR. TRUSTER: We would request the reporter

mark this as State’s Exhibit Number Two and move to admit it

into evidence at this time.

THE COURT: Put it in the envelope and mark

the envelope. That would be hard to mark that thing.

(State’s Exhibit Number Two was marked for identification

by the reporter.)

MR. WALLACE: I have no objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No objection, it may be admitted.

MR. TRUSTER: We would also reserve time, Your

Honor, so that the ladies and gentlemen of the jury would be

able to see this exhibit just prior to the State resting its

case, to circulate it among the jury.

THE COURT: Permission granted.

MR. TRUSTER: I have no further questions.

CROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE: .

Q. Officer Roberts, were you involved in any of the

investigation on this case?

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, Your Honor, it’s

outside the scope of direct examination.

THE COURT: The examination of this witness

was only the picking up of the bullet from the pathologist

so any other testimony would be without the scope. If you need

him for your own witness I can make him available.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Officer Roberts, do you remember

the date, sir, which you retrieved this bullet from Doctor

Fogel? .

A This was on October 18th, 1972.

Q. October 18th ‑‑ the day after ‑‑ 1972, you stated?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And do you remember where Doctor Fogel was at the time

you retrieved this bullet?

A In his office.

Q. And was he employed at that time? Do you know what

capacity he was employed in at that time?

A He was serving as the State pathologist.  It was at

Oklahoma Osteopathic Hospital, however he was acting as the State

pathologist.

Q. Officer, did you retain this bullet in your control

at all times after you received it from Doctor Fogel?

A Yes, I left the hospital and drove about three blocks

back to the police station and turned it in.

Q. Do you of your own personal knowledge know who gave

this bullet to Doctor Fogel?

A I understand he removed it from the body.

Q. Officer, if you will observe what has been marked as

State’s Exhibit ‑‑

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, Your Honor, the

evidence has already been admitted, if counsel is questioning

the admissibility.

THE COURT: Anything concerning the evidence

in is subject to cross‑examination.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Would you observe this envelope,

please, and state to me if any other police officer’s name is

not inscribed there upon the second line, I believe?

A Yes, there is another police officer’s name on the

second line.

Q. What is that, please, sir?

A Sergeant Lewallen.

Q. Of your own personal knowledge was that bullet ever

in his possession?

A I don’t know.

Q. Would you read for me, please, what is written on the

first two lines on that envelope?

A One .22 mag bullet checked out on E‑3945 by Sergeant

Lewallen, 10‑18‑72.

MR. WALLACE: Very good, thank you, sir. Your

Honor, we would move to have this evidence excluded under

improper chain of custody at this time as the State has not

established a proper chain of custody to introduce the same.

MR. TRUSTER: If the Court please, the chain has

been established.

THE COURT: At the time he examined the bullet,

of course.

MR. TRUSTER: He didn’t object at that time.

  MR. WALLACE: I didn’t examine the envelope.

MR. TRUSTER: That is all that is before the

Court, the bullet.

THE COURT: The objection is to the envelope,

is that correct?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, which I assume is reflective o

the custody of the bullet, if the bullet has in fact been in that

envelope the whole time.

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, if I may ask one

preliminary question to clear the whole thing up.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. TRUSTER: Detective Roberts, is this bullet

in the same condition, the bullet itself, as you got it from

Doctor Fogel on October 17th or 18th, 1972?

A Yes, sir, I looked at the bullet and it appears to

be in the same condition as it was when I received it from

Doctor Fogel.

MR. TRUSTER::                                You didn’t mash it or play with it

pinch it or anything of that nature?

A The ballistics were good, the end was marked with an

F and the other end was mashed as it is now.

MR. TRUSTER: We reoffer and object to his

objection.

THE COURT: I will admit it and allow you an

exception.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace)  Officer Roberts, apparently from

your testimony this bullet looks the same as on October 18th

the day you got it?

A Yes.

Q. Does not the writing on the envelope indicate that it

has been checked out?

A I don’t know anything about the writing on the .

envelope..

MR. TRUSTER: If the Court please, we object to

the writing on the envelope. The envelope is simply a container

this bullet was contained in.

MR. WALLACE: It also reflects the custody.

MR. TRUSTER: Ask to approach the bench.

THE COURT: I have previously ruled it be

admitted into evidence. He checked it into the property room.

If there is a contention there has been some alteration in the

chain of custody I will give you opportunity to explore that at

a later time. . .

MR. TRUSTER: We will simply make Tom Lewallen

available for the defense if he thinks there is any irregularity

involved with that bullet.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. TRUSTER: I have no further questions.

MR. WALLACE: I have nothing further. .

THE COURT: You may be excused.

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, we have two additional

witnesses to call. Could the Court entertain a brief five‑

minute recess? I have not been able to speak to an identification

officer who is waiting in the hallway.

THE COURT: We will take a 10‑minute mid‑

afternoon recess and that way you can go down and get a short

coke.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had outside the

presence of the jury.)

MR. WALLACE: Comes now the defendant, James

Scott Bauhaus, and renews his motion for mistrial at this time

on the grounds defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights against self‑

incrimination have been violated by his repeated forced standing

in front of the witness which is highly prejudicial to him.

Renews motion for mistrial on the grounds Mr. Truster’s asking

the witness is this the same cleft the defendant had on October

17th, 1972. Comes now the defendant and further moves for mis-

trial on the grounds that juror Geraldine Marple should be

excused in this matter in that the information originally read

in this trial was not the amended information, it was delete of

Mrs. Baker as a prospective witness who the State anticipated

at that time calling. Mrs. Marple has stated that she knows the

witness in the case which is highly prejudicial to the

defendant.

  THE COURT: I will bring Mrs. Marple in and

if it’s determined the fact of her acquaintance would have an

effect I will probably remove her and substitute the alternate

juror.

MR. TRUSTER: For the purposes of the record,

let’s make sure that it is straight insofar as this aspect. Mr.

Wallace referred to at the time of the reading of the informa-

tion and that is in error. I read the amended information to

the Court and the jury in opening statement which does reflect

the name of Mrs. Jack Baker at the bottom thereof.

THE COURT: The Court did not have the

opportunity to voir dire the jury on that although each of you

had a copy of it and many times, of course, there is additional

names and I generally don’t thumb through the subpoenaes or the

order to endorse additional witnesses which many times are in

the file. I deny the motions, denied as to the identification

procedures of the defendant in the courtroom but I will conduct

an evidentiary hearing as to the acquaintanceship of the juror

with one of the witnesses.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

THE COURT: Out of the presence of the jury

the Court inquires of counsel for the defendant. The court

reporter had notified the Court that one of the jurors, Mrs.

Geraldine Marple, had notified the court reporter that she was

acquainted with Mrs. Baker. Mrs. Baker’s name had not been read

by the Court as one of the witnesses since it was not on the par‑

ticular information that the Court had read the list of witnesses

although counsel for the State and for the defendant had copies

of the amended information which did include Mrs. Baker’s name,

is that correct?

MR. TRUSTER: That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. WALLACE: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And at this time I will offer an

evidentiary hearing of the juror, Mrs. Marple, to determine the

extent of the acquaintanceship with Mrs. Baker and further to

determine whether or not her acquaintanceship would have any

hearing or attitude as to her impartiality as a juror and I will

conduct the first interrogation and permit, upon request, counsel

for the State and for the defendant to further interrogate.

MR. WALLACE: Very good. And this will be

outside the presence of the other jurors.

(Thereafter juror Geraldine Marple was called into the

courtroom and the proceedings were as follows.)

THE COURT:You are Mrs. Marple?

JUROR MARPLE: Yes.

THE COURT: Just have your seat over there in

the jury box. Let the record show that this occurs outside the

presence of the regularly impaneled jurors. One of the jurors

has been called into court pursuant to notification by this

juror to the court reporter that she was acquainted with the

witness Mrs. Baker. And at this time, Mrs. Marple, Mrs. Baker

has been called and she was not one of the names that were read

off to you?

JUROR MARPLE: I didn’t think so and I knew

nothing about the connection with the case and as far as the

way I feel ‑‑

THE COURT: Just how closely acquainted are

you?

JUROR MARPLE: Actually her mother‑in‑law lives

next door to my mother so it’s just, as I say, I didn’t even

know, she had anything to do with this case.

THE COURT: How long have you known Mrs. Baker?

JUROR MARPLE: Well, I was trying to think how man

years.

THE COURT: Approximately?

JUROR MARPLE: Oh, it’s probably been 10 years but

it’s just really if she happened to be over at her mother‑in‑law’s

I mean, as far as visiting with her.

THE COURT: You have never talked to her

about this case?

JUROR MARPLE: No, I have never visited where she

lives in her home, I have never visited with her, it’s just a

casual acquaintance. .

THE COURT: You know her on sight and you have

been acquainted with her on a casual basis?

JUROR MARPLE: Right, sir.

THE COURT: And you have met her in her

relative’s home which is next door to your ‑‑

JUROR MARPLE:My mother.

THE COURT: Is that correct. And has she

been in your home?

JUROR MARPLE: No.

THE COURT: Would the fact that you are .

acquainted with her, would that have any bearing whatsoever

upon your attitude as a juror?

JUROR MARPLE: No, because I still feel like I

would have to weigh both sides of the question.

THE COURT: Do you feel that you should give

her testimony greater weight by reason of this acquaintanceship

than any other witness?

JUROR MARPLE: No, I do not.

THE COURT: Would the State desire any ques‑

tions?

MR. TRUSTER: No, Your Honor, the State has

no questions.

THE COURT: The defense?

MR. WALLACE: . Mrs. Marple, through your ac‑

quaintance with Mrs. Baker have you all visited from time to

time?

JUROR MARPLE: No, like I said, it’s really a

casual acquaintance.

MR. WALLACE: You more or less just know her

on appearance only? .

JUROR MARPLE: Yes.

MR. WALLACE: Can you tell me at this time you

will not give her testimony any more credence over anybody

else?

JUROR MARPLE: Right

MR. WALLACE: You will scrutinize it the same

as anybody else and not allow it any more weight whatsoever

because you are acquainted with her?

JUROR MARPLE: No, I would not.

MR. WALLACE: Very well.

THE COURT: We thank you for your statement.

If you will return outside to the jury room I will then make

inquiry of counsel.

Is there any request that the Court shall or shall not

notify the other jurors about the reason for the interrogation

of one of the jurors concerning her acquaintanceship with Mrs.

Baker? That is designed for the defendant.

MR. WALLACE: No, Your Honor, I would assume

that the rest of the jury need not know anything about it as

far as that goes.

MR. TRUSTER:That is fine.

THE COURT: Is it your request that I notify

Mrs. Marple not to discuss this matter with the other jurors?

MR. WALLACE: I would request that, please.

THE COURT:Bring Mrs. Marple back in.

You won’t have to take the stand. Mrs. Marple, while the

trial is in progress the fact that you have been brought in and

had this interrogation, I would prefer that you did not notify

the other jurors concerning what transpired here until such

time as you then go into the jury deliberation room to deliber‑

ste and then you may tell them in effect what you have testified

here.

JUROR MARPLE: All right. Do you want me to

Leave now?

THE COURT: No, bring all of the jurors in

now.

MR. WALLACE: If I might have just a minute now..

THE COURT: Before we bring them in? .

MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir.

(State’s Exhibits Three through 21 are marked for identifi‑

cation by the reporter.)

THE COURT: Out of the presence of the jury.

MR. TRUSTER: Yes, Your Honor. If the Court

please, during the recess we have marked for purposes of

identification State’s Exhibits Three through 20, photographs

taken at the crime scene on October 17th, 1972, and given counsel

an opportunity to examine same. We intend to offer all photo‑

graphs into evidence upon sponsorship by Mr. Bill Yarbrough

of the Tulsa police department.

MR. WALLACE: May I inquire, Mr. Truster, is.

Mr. Yarbrough the man who took the pictures?

MR. TRUSTER: He was there when they were taken

and he took the photographs, either part or all of the photo‑

graphs. He can testify they accurately depict the scene.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, we would object to any

of these as having no probative value. The issues which they

purport to portray, if any, have been established by testimony

in this case. The photographs offer nothing but bolstering of

the State’s case which they have offered many, and appear to me

to be incompetent. We would further object to the pictures of

the deceased as that issue has not been contested. The pictures

we consider to be highly inflammatory and prejudicial to the

defendant and would request that they be ruled upon as inadmis‑

sible at this time.

THE COURT: I don’t think that this one, the

position of the body ‑‑ I will let them all go in but this one ‑‑

and if the position of the body then becomes an issue. The

others did not display any gruesome, don’t depict gruesome

conditions. The rest of them shows the interior of the house

which has been testified to and as an aid to the jury I will

permit them and allow an exception and we will exclude this one,

that is Number 20.

MR. WALLACE: 20, yes, sir. Exception, please. .

THE COURT: Allowed. We are ready to call

the jury then.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had before the

jury.)

  THE COURT: Is the State ready to proceed?

MR. TRUSTER: Yes, Your Honor. The State is

ready. We would call Officer Bill Yarbrough at this time.

THE COURT: Do you solemnly swear the testimony

you are about to give in the cause now on trial will be the

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you

God?

THE WITNESS: . I do,

BILL YARBROUGH.,

called as a witness on behalf of the State, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRIISTER:

Q. State your name for the Court, record and jury, please,

sir?

ABill Yarbrough.

Q. What is your business, profession or occupation?

A Police officer, City of Tulsa.

Q. Are you assigned to a particular division?

A The identification division. . .

Q. How long have you been a police officer?

A Twelve years.

Q. I will ask you, please, sir, were you so assigned in

that capacity on or about October 17th, 1972?

A Yes.

Q. And did you have an occasion, please, sir, to go to the

scene of a homicide?

A Yes.

Q. I will ask you, please, sir, if you would to take a

look at certain photographs heretofore and previously marked

for identification as State’s Exhibits Three through 19 that are

now before you. Would you take a look at those, Officer, and see

if you recognize those?

A Yes, I do.

Q. I will ask you, officer, did you have an occasion to

take those photographs?

A Yes.

Q. Did you take all of them?

A Yes.

Q. Do they accurately and correctly depict the scene as

you observed it on October 17th, 1972?

A Yes.

Q. Now, Officer Yarbrough, who all was present from the

identification section other than yourself at that address,

please, sir?

A Officer Frank Vincent and Officer Don Peyton. .

Q. I will ask you, please, sir, if you observed or did

you assist in the recovery of State’s Exhibit Number 21 which

has heretofore been marked for identification?

A Yes, I photographed this.

Q. And that is depicted among the exhibits in the photo‑

graphs that you have just looked at?

  A Yes.

Q. I will ask you, please, sir, if you were present when

officer Don Peyton recovered State’s Exhibit Number 217 .

A Yes.

Q. Did you observe him mark it?

A Yes.

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, at this time we would

offer into evidence State’s Exhibits Three through 19, the

photographs taken by this officer and State’s Exhibit Number 21.

MR.  WALLACE: I would renew my objection, Your

Honor, as to any relevancy that these may have at this time.

THE COURT: I will overrule and allow an

exception to the defendant. They may be admitted.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

MR. TRUSTER: Again we would reserve showing

the jury the entire exhibits until prior to resting, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Now, let me ask you this, officer

Yarbrough. I will hand you, please, sir, what has been hereto‑

fore marked as State’s Exhibit Number One. Would you tell the

Court and jury what that is, if you know?

A This is a .22 caliber Ruger revolver which I recovered.

Q. You recovered at the scene at 5145 East 25th Place?

A .Yes.

And what did you do with it, please, sir?

A I marked it and turned it into the police property

room.

Q. Are your markings still on that weapon?

AYes, sir, on the butt.

MR. TRUSTER: We would offer State’s Exhibit

Number One into evidence at this time. .

THE COURT: It may be admitted.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) I will ask you, sir, during the

course of the taking of these photographs did you have an

occasion to compare State’s Exhibit Number 21, the screwdriver

with the marks that appear depicted in State’s Exhibit 15

and 14, depicted in those two exhibits and the photograph of

the screwdriver itself in State’s Exhibit 13?

A Yes.

Q. And where were those marks located, please, sir?

A On the door frame of the north door that leads into

the kitchen from the outside of the back yard.

Q. Now, did you also compare State’s Exhibit Number One

with those pry marks that you observed?

A Yes.

Q. What did you find when you made that comparison?

A They matched.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Truster,

I believe, referred to State’s Exhibit Number One.

THE COURT: That would be ‑‑

MR. TRUSTER: 21. I am sorry if I did.

MR. WALLACE: I would object and ask that

question be stricken unless a proper predicate be laid as to

Mr. Lewallen’s qualifications.

THE COURT: You might go through the procedure.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Did you, as a member of the

identification police lab, if you will, have you ever had

occasion to go to the scene of a burglary rather than a homicide?

A Yes.

Q. When you go to that type of crime scene do you sometime

run into pry marks?

A Yes.

Q. Is that a common method of entry used by burglars?

A Yes.

Q. Now, on how many occasions, please, sir, have you

examined pry marks in the course of your employment with the

Tulsa police department and the identification section?

A I really wouldn’t have any idea. We go to between

four and five hundred cases a month, most of them burglary calls.

Q. You have seen a lot of pry marks?

A Yes.

Q. The burglary rate is up 19 per cent according to the

paper, is that right?

MR. WALLACE: I object to that. Mr. Truster

is is arguing.

  THE COURT: I sustain the objection as

immaterial to this issue.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) When you compare an instrument

with pry marks what do you exactly do?

A This screwdriver had some paint chips on it which

resembled the paint on the door frame and when placed up

against the impression on the door frame it corresponded exactly

to the impression on the door frame.

MR. TRUSTER: I have no further questions.

Thank you, sir.

CROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Officer Yarbrough, how long have you been with the

Tulsa police department, sir?

ATwelve years.

Q. Have you always been assigned to the identification

department? 

A No.

Q. You stated that Frank Vincent and Don Peyton, I

believe, were also upon the scene?

A Yes.

Q. Now, you have stated on direct testimony, I believe,

that the paint chips on the screwdriver revealed the paint on

the outside of the house, is that correct, sir?

A Yes.

Q. Did you have an opportunity at a later time or subse‑

quent to these pictures of testing this paint and the paint on

the house?

A No.

Q. You did not?

A No.

Q. Is that normal procedure in burglary cases or where

you have a pry situation such as this, an alleged instrument

used to pry open a door?

A No, not if the instrument appears to match the pry

mark.

Q. You just assume that it appears to match? .

A It did match.

Q. You didn’t feel it was necessary to test the paint

samples on the screwdriver as opposed to the paint on the house?

A No.

Q. Is that perhaps why the burglary rate is up 19 per

cent?

MR. TRUSTER: Objection, Your Honor. .

THE COURT: I sustained your objection to his

remark in that regard and I will sustain counsel for the

State’s objection to your remark.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Very good. Officer Yarbrouqh,

does this appear as it appears to me, does it appear to you to

be a normal everyday screwdriver, is that what this represents?

A.Yes.

Q. Could another screwdriver match that impression?

A Yes.

Q. Another screwdriver similar to this, the same type

blade?

A Yes.

Q. So, essentially then what we have is the width of the

end of this screwdriver matches this impression on this door?

A Yes.

Q. Not specifically that this screwdriver is the instru‑

ment that made that mark?

A No.

MR. WALLACE: Very good. Thank you, Officer,

that is a11 I have.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. Officer, where was the screwdriver recovered, if you

recall?

A Yes, it was on a bed in the northeast bedroom.

Q. In what proximity to this door, if you recall?

A There is a hallway separating the northeast bedroom

from the kitchen.

Q. Did you personally recover any other screwdrivers out

there?

A No.

MR. TRUSTER: No further questions.

RECROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Officer, do you know whose screwdriver this is, sir?

A No.

Q. Did you have an opportunity to process this screw‑

driver for fingerprints? .

A I did not, no. . .

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge who did,

air?

A Don Peyton.

MR. WALLACE: Don Peyton. That is all I have.

MR. TRUSTER: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: The witness may be excused.

MR. TRUSTER: Call Officer Jess McCUllough at

this time.

THE COURT: Do you solemnly swear the testimony

you are about to give in the cause now on trial will be the

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you

God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

MR. WALLACE: Comes now the defendant at this

time, Your Honor, and renews his objection and moves for a mis‑

trial on the  grounds of the exception of officer McCullough

throughout the testimony and the cases hold that the better

practice in this situation is to offer his testimony first as

opposed to the last of the State’s case in chief.

THE COURT: The motion is denied and exception

allowed. .

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: I will look at those cases.

JESS McCULLOUGH,

called as a witness on behalf of the State, testified as follows

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. State your name for the Court, record and jury, please

sir?

A Jess McCullough.

Q. What is your business, profession or occupation?

A Police officer, City of Tulsa.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A Thirteen and a half years.

Q. Are you assigned to a particular division?

A. Homicide detail.

Q. I will ask you, please, sir, were you so assigned on

October 17th, 1972?

A Yes, sir, I was. . .

Q. Did you have an occasion to conduct an investigation of

a homicide involving the deceased Jefferson Dee Hunt?

A Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And I will ask you, please, sir, tell the Court and

jury what you did on October 17th?

A At 2:39 P.M. I was in the detective bureau at the

police department in the lieutenant’s office and monitored a

call put out by police radio that there had been a man shot at

5145 East 25th Place at which time I proceeded to that location.

Q. And upon arrival was any other person present?

A There were several persons present. There was, first

of all there was Central Ambulance attendants Pat Mason and

Gary Stevenson, several police officers, Sergeant John Jarrett.

Patrol division, John Lilleskau, a young officer named Barry,

and moments later the identification bureau arrived. Also

two detectives that were there prior to the arrival of the

patrol division, Larry Bayles and J. R. Brown.

Q. I will ask you, Officer, was Mrs. Hunt there?

A No, sir, she wasn’t.

Q. At the time that you arrived?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, explain to the Court and jury what you

do when you are in charge of a homicide investigation and if

you would kind of relate that to what you did on October 17th,

’72?

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I would object to

what he does. I would allow Mr. McCullough to testify as to

what he did.

THE COURT: You may either have the first,

the expertise of the homicide investigation separate and then

you must relate it to this so we don’t intertwine the two.

MR. TRUSTER: That will be fine, Judge, excuse

me.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Jess, will you tell the Court and

jury what you do when you are in charge of a homicide investi‑

gation?

A As I arrived the first thing that I normally do is to

place officers at strategic locations to prevent any possible

evidence from being destroyed, to keep any person or persons

away from the immediate scene. You then call for your additional

help such as your identification bureau to take your photographs

the fingerprint work, you call for your medical examiner who

has to examine the body in all cases of this and members from

the district attorney’s investigation team were also called.

From that point on you might say it is a matter of routine

where you take diagrams, noting specific locations of articles

that you feel might be of importance to the case. Also measure‑

ments in relation to, in this case the body, in relation to the

weapon, in relation to what we might term landmarks or either

pieces of furniture, distances from wall to body, et cetera.

Q. Would you relate to the Court and jury then the

procedures that you followed on October 17th, ’72?

A Okay. Basically what I have described, the same

procedure was followed. Upon arrival the patrol division under

the direction of Sergeant John Jarrett did have the scene

secured properly. The front door was secured, the back door

was secured and the scene within was properly secured at that

time and my work proceeded then.

Q. Now, Jess, so far as the language of secured is

concerned, we are familiar with that. What exactly does that

mean in common parlance for the Court and jury?

A Okay. The scene was protected by these officers, the

front door was protected to keep onlookers or any unnecessary

personnel from the scene as well as the back door.

Q. Now, Identification was called?

A Yes, sir.

Q. They arrived. What specifically did they do other

than take photographs? . . .

A Okay. Basically our investigation does not take

place until the identification bureau has done their work simply

because something might be moved. We want it photographed as

it was at the time of our arrival. The identification bureau

moves in, they commence their work and in this particular case,

as I recall, the work started in the room in which the body

was located in order that we might get our medical examiner in

there to examine the body.

Q. Now, for the benefit of all of us, what room again

was that body located? .

A Well, I would call it the dining area, living area‑

dining area.

Q. Were you present when Identification processed the

crime scene for any fingerprints?

A I did not follow the Identification boys throughout

the house, feeling that they are competent enough to do their

job. I stayed back until they got their part of it done.

Q. Now, let me ask you this, Officer McCullough, as the

officer in charge of the investigation are you familiar with the

results that are fed to you from the Identification people

insofar as reports made, et cetera?

A Reports from the identificationdivision are forwarded

to the investigator’s desk.

Q. Now, in this specific case the homicide of Jefferson

Dee Hunt, did they process for fingerprints?

A Yes, sir, they did. .

Q. How many occasions?

A They were there on three occasions that I know of.

Q. And are you familiar with the reports insofar as

whether or not any fingerprints were latent that could be

identifiable?

A Okay, latent prints of an identifiable nature were

obtained. Let me say this, there were latent prints obtained,

however none identified.

Q. Now, by none identified you mean none identifiable

to the accused, James Scott Bauhaus?

A Okay, yes, sir.

Q. Now, Officer McCullough, did you have occasion, please,

sir, to observe any blood in that scene of the homicide?

A Since I am not a chemist I will say that there was

red substances or a red substance about the scene that

appeared to be blood, yes.

Q. You have seen blood before as a lay person?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Did it look like blood to you out there?

A Yes, sir. .

Q. Where did you see the blood, please, sir? .

A There was blood near the back door, there was blood

on the fence, top rail of the chain link fence northeast of

the back door, also spots of blood on the sidewalk going north

on Darlington from this address.

Q. All right. Now, Officer McCullough, insofar as the

blood on the back door, is this depicted by any of the State’s

Exhibits heretofore admitted into evidence, and take your time

and take a peek at those.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, if I may save officer

McCullough some time, I believe the pictures speak for them‑

selves at this time and I object to it.

MR. TRUSTER: I just want to identify it into

the record: I appreciate counsel’s help but I try my own case.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

A Okay, either my eyesight is bad or I can’t see it but

the area in which I was referring to was on the concrete part.

I can’t, as far as the door is concerned, see any on the door

itself but on the concrete slab and the steps leading out there

is a few spots right here.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) All right. Now, you say on the

concrete slab and the door leading out?

A Yes.

Q.Which door are you referring to?

A I am referring to the north door, yes, sir.

Q. That back door where the kitchen is?

A Yes, sir, the storm door on the kitchen.

MR. WALLACE: Object to that, Your Honor,

as leading his witness. Mr. Truster is testifying.

THE COURT: The answer has been in. I will

ask counsel for the State to refrain from leading as much as

possible.

MR. TRUSTER: Yes, Your Honor.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Officer McCullough, did you ob‑

observe the back door to the kitchen area itself?

A Yes, sir, I did.

Q. How would you describe that, please, sir?

A The storm door with the bottom partition, glass

partition knocked out and glass scattered outward onto the back

porch, the slab that I referred to.

Q. Now, I believe that you indicated one photograph in

which blood appeared to you to exist?

A 16, 1 believe.

Q. You just passed it.

A.. I am sorry.

Q. All right. This is on the concrete slab referring to

the broken glass that appears in the picture there on, State’s

Exhibit 11?

A Yes, sir. .

Q. How about this one, State’s Exhibit 16, please, sir,

what is that?

A This is the top rail of the chain link fence at the

northeast corner of the yard on which the red substance that

appeared to be blood was on.

Q. That is in the yard, front or back of the house?

A It’s in the back of the house.

What did you do when you found that, please, sir?

A When we found this I again stationed an officer at

this position to see that it was not molested.

Q. Officer McCullough, I will ask you, please, sir, do you

know a person by the name of Mrs. Jack Baker?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have an occasion to see Mrs. Baker on October

17th, 1972?

A Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Under what circumstances did you see Mrs. Baker?

A I was directed to Mrs. Baker by officers that were

already there that were around the neighborhood and as I was

walking up to talk to Mrs. Baker who was sitting in the 2400

block of Darlington there, this is when I noticed the blood

spots on the sidewalk and I did talk to Mrs. Baker probably two

or three minutes there, maybe five.

Q. Officer McCullough, how far away was Mrs.. Baker locate

from the scene of the homicide at the Hunt residence?

A It would be two blocks.  She was sitting at 24th and

this was on 25th Place, it would be 25th, 25th Place and the

Hunt residence sits on the very corner of 25th Place. Two

blocks. .

Q. Is that the same general direction a person would be

leaving the residence from the rear door?

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your

Honor, as being speculative, a person can go any direction after

he is out the back door.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection

to the question.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Which direction would that lead,

sir, from the back door of the Hunt residence?

A North.

Q. Northerly direction?

AYes, sir.

Q. And two blocks away?

A Yes, sir.

Q. Describe the blood spots that you observed leading to

Mrs. Baker’s location?

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your Honor

again he is leading the witness and he is testifying. Officer

McCullough has not testified that they led to Mrs. Baker, he

testified he observed them in that area.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Just tell us about the blood that

you saw in Mrs. Baker’s area then, please, sir?

A Okay. From the blood that was found on this top rail

of this chain link fence, looking over the fence and to the

sidewalk you could see that the blood spots headed north and walking

north the blood spots were not close together, they were in

a fairly good pattern but apart, maybe 12 to 18 inches apart

and drops, maybe one drop and then maybe two or three drops but

they were scattered apart and led to or alongside Mrs. Baker’s

car on the 2400 block.

Q. Now, you could see these blood spots, Officer?

A Yes, sir, they were readily visible to the eye.

MR. TRUSTER: I have no further questions.

CROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Officer McCullough, what time did you arrive

on the scene, please, sir?

A Well, like I say, I got ‑‑

Q. The time you arrived at the actual scene at the Hunt

residence?

A That is what I am trying to figure out. I left the

office at 2:39, roughly 2:39, it probably took me 15 minutes

at that hour to drive out there, I would assume, 10 to 15

minutes, roughly.

Q. Almost 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon then, approxi‑

mately, 10 till, quarter?

A  Probably 10 till would be a good estimate, yes, sir.

Q. And of your own personal knowledge do you know who

the first officer to arrive upon the scene was?

A Of my own personal knowledge?

Q. Yes.

A No, I only have reports to go by.

Q. Do you know which officer it was, Officer

McCullough, that asked Mrs. Hunt to leave?

A No, I don’t.

Q. Can you tell me the name of the officer, please, who

secured the scene and was in control at that time?

A Sergeant John Jarrett, the patrol division was the

ranking officer there as I arrived.

Q. Jarrod?

A. J-a-r-r-e-t-t.

Q. Now, you stated your normal procedure is to secure the

scene?

A Yes, sir.

Q. So that no one destroys any potential evidence, is that

correct?

A This is primary concern, yes.

Q. I will hand you what has been marked State’s Exhibit

14. Would you tell me what that depicts, please, sir?

A Yes, sir, it depicts a screwdriver being compared to

a pry mark on a door or on a piece of wood.

Q. All right, sir. I will also hand you what has been

marked State’s Exhibit 13. Would you tell me what that is, .

please, sir?

A That is a picture of a screwdriver.

Q. Do you know, Officer, of your own personal knowledge

why State’s Exhibit 13, the picture of the screwdriver was taken?

A Repeat that, please.

Q. I will rephrase it. Can you determine from the

picture taken of this screwdriver that it was anticipated

it would be evidence in this case? .

A I  personally can’t answer that because the identifica‑

tion bureau was the one that book the photograph and I did not

see the screwdriver in that position as it is photographed.

Q. Referring you back to State’s Exhibit 14, is it normal

department policy to handle potential evidence in a homicide

case with bare hands in that manner?

A To an experienced identification officer in some cases,

yes.

Q. To handle it with your bare hands?

A Yes.

Q. Of your own personal knowledge, Officer, you stated

fingerprints were taken at the scene?

A There was fingerprints taken.

Q. your own personal knowledge, Officer, did the

results of these fingerprints direct the police department’s

attention to this defendant?

A Okay, by personal knowledge I have to refer again

to the reports that are forwarded to us and upon talking to the

officer who compared the fingerprints of those taken at the

scene and those as compared to the victim there was no finger‑

prints at the scene that matched ‑‑ or I am sorry, the accused

here, the defendant. None of these fingerprints matched his.

Q. All right, sir. Were blood samples taken at the

scene, to your knowledge?

A I personally didn’t take them. I do know there was

some taken, yes.

Q. You do know there was some taken?

A Yes.

Q. Have the results of those been communicated to you?

A No.

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge, sir, who

took those samples?

A Of my own personal knowledge, no, again referring to

reports.

Q. Now, these blood spots, officer, you testified were

approximately how far apart?

A Well, they varied, sir, maybe you could find one

maybe six inches to 10 inches, maybe 18 inches but they were

spots, no great sum like they were standing in one spot at any

time, continual movement. .

Q. Could you give the jury an idea, please, the diameter

or approximate size of the drops?

A Maybe some a quarter to a half inch at the biggest

and smaller in some cases. 

Q. Officer, on direct examination you stated they varied

somewhat; on cross you added six inches, about six to eight

inches apart?

A Approximately, yes, it varied.

Q. Officer, as a lay person and not necessarily drawing

on your expertise as a witness, if someone were running with

long strides extremely fast would it be conceivable there was

drops of blood every six to 12 inches apart?

A I didn’t say every six inches, I said in some cases.

Q. Would you estimate for me, sir, the stride of a six‑

foot man?

A I couldn’t do that.

MR. TRUSTER: Mr. Bauhaus is about six foot, he

could demonstrate for you.

MR. WALLACE: I would ask the Court to allow me

to conduct my own cross‑examination.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WALLACE: I would ask Mr. Truster be

admonished to keep his comments on his own.

THE COURT: Since it happened on the other

side, each side will be permitted to ask questions in their

own inimitable fashion.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. Jess, let me ask you this, as an officer experienced

in homicide investigation have you ever seen a case solved by

one element of evidence?

A. By one element?

Q. Yes, sir.

MR. WALLACE: Object to that, as to what solved

means.

THE COURT: Well, I think that is vague and not

necessarily material to the issues here.

MR. TRUSTER: Note our exception.

THE COURT: Allowed.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Jess, at a crime scene they are

dusted for fingerprints, you testified to that. A person or

persons may have observed the event, is that not true?

A.Yes, Sir.

MR. WALLACE: I would ask Mr. Truster to direct

questions toward the witness rather than testifying for him.

MR. TRUSTER: I am trying to lay the predicate

that counsel has objected to.

THE COURT: I will overrule. This is prepara‑

tory to his expert opinion as an officer?

MR. TRUSTER:Yes, sir.

THE COURT:All right.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Fingerprints are taken at a crime

scene, persons are interviewed as to what they observed, is that

not true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Blood samples are taken, if any available?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. On occasion?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. A weapon is generally recovered if one is available

to be recovered, is that not true?

A Yes, sir.

Q. That is four factors, Officer McCullough. Now, have

you ever seen a person arrested and charged with a crime with one

of those factors and not others?

MR. WALLACE: I will object, Your Honor, as to

what he has ever seen. Mr. McCullouch is an experienced police

officer we will stipulate to that, I appreciate his expertise

but as to what he has ever seen.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection as

not material to the issues involved and could possibly invade

the province of the jury.

MR. TRUSTER: Note our exception.

THE COURT: Allowed.

Q. (By Mr, Truster) Officer McCullough, counsel

referred to this picture of the comparison of the pry marks on

the door to the rear of the residence and noted the finger of

an officer, probably an identification officer, we don’t know.

You don’t know whether or not ‑‑

MR. WALLACE: Again, Mr. Truster is testifying.

THE COURT: I will overrule. I presume this

is predicate to a question directed to the Officer.

MR. WALLACE: He is telling the Officer what

he knows and doesn’t know.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Do you know, Officer, whether or

lot this photograph taken of the screwdriver laying on the pillow

case, or whatever, on the bed was taken before or after this

Photograph of the comparison of the pry marks?

A Personally I don’t know. I can give my opinion as to

what happened.

Q. What is your opinion, please, sir?

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your Honor,

if he wasn’t present.

THE COURT: If it’s rank speculation then, of

course, it would not be admissible. If it’s based upon the

expertise and training and you have a reasonable basis to found

the answer on then, of course, I will admit it under the modus

operandi of detection or examination of scenes.

A. May I say that I have worked in the identification

division four years prior to becoming investigator in the

homicide detail, if that is‑any help.

MR. WALLACE: Officer ‑‑

MR. TRUSTER: Excuse me.

MR. WALLACE: I am sorry.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Let me ask you then, please, sir,

would it not be possible that after this State’s Exhibit Number

13 was taken, that the officer, identification officer then use

State’s Exhibit Number 21 and made the comparison and photograph

as in State’s Exhibit 14?

MR. WALLACE: I would object to what is possible,

Your Honor.

THE COURT:Overruled.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

  THE COURT:Allowed.

A. That is the proper thing to do, that the scene is

photographed as it is, if there is any evidence or possible

evidence that could be connected to other evidence or possible

evidence, then it is moved after it is completely processed.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) And you heard Officer Bill

Yarbrough testify that he took all of these exhibits, did you

not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you have any idea why counsel did not inquire of

Officer Yarbrough why he took or whether he took State’s Exhibits

13 or 14 before each other?

THE COURT: If you are making an objection I

sustain it.

MR. WALLACE: I will make an objection, Your

Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) One thing about the blood spots,

Officer McCullough indicated from the photographs that there is

a back grassy area in the back yard?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did these blood spots appear that you followed?

A. From the chain link fence, this particular spot that

is photographed was 48 feet south of the north fence line of

this particular yard and as I testified to previously the blood

being on top of this fence and by looking over the fence onto the

sidewalk you could see the blood splattered and starting in a

northerly direction.

Q. That was my question, Officer, there was a sidewalk

there?

A Yes.

Q.Immediately over the fence area?

A Yes, sir.

Q. And the spots were on the sidewalk?

A Yes.

  Q. The sidewalk, where did it lead again?

A North.

MR. WALLACE:Once again, Your Honor ‑‑

MR. TRUSTER: Toward Mrs. Baker. No further

questions.

MR. WALLACE: Request that Mr. Truster inquire

of the witness rather than testify for him.

THE COURT: I will overrule.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

RECROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Officer, I didn’t notice the State introduce any

photograph of this trail of blood. Do you know if any were

taken, sir?

A Personally I don’t know.

Q. Do you happen to know why not, sir?

A I  tell you, due to the ‑‑ now, it would be my opinion

only as to the photographic nature of things and there may be

some more qualified than I here in the courtroom but the spots

were not of a heavy nature, the sun was bright, the background

on which the blood was laying would make it pretty hard but

not, I don’t guess, impossible to determine if it was actually

there.

Q. Officer, in your opinion as a prior member of the

identification team do you feel that there is enough blood on

this particular fence post to retrieve a possible semi‑palm

print or blood sample?

MR. TRUSTER: Excuse me, I will have to object,

assuming a state of facts not in evidence. We are not sure

whether that blood came from the palm or on the forearm of the

defendant.

THE COURT: I will permit it as a hypothetical.

A. Did you ask is there enough there to obtain a partial

print?

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Yes.

A Yes.

Q. Do you know if a print was taken from that?

AIt was dusted, yes.

Q. Do you know the results of that, of your own personal

knowledge?

A I personally didn’t compare it.

Q. Very well. Officer, do you know if this gun was precessed

for fingerprints?

A Personally, no.

Q. Subject to your reports submitted to you in this

case are you aware of this gun being processed for fingerprints?

A. I am aware of it by reports, yes.

Q. Were any of those prints identifiable as the

defendant’s?

A. No, sir.

MR. WALLACE: I believe that is all I have,

Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. One further question, officer McCullouqh, insofar as

fingerprints have been touched upon in your testimony: Is it

a correct statement, sir, that all latent prints are not

necessarily identifiable?

MR. WALLACE: I will object to that, Your

Honor, I object to the form of the question as to Mr. Truster’s

testifying for Mr. McCullough.

MR. TRUSTER: I am not testifying, if the Court

please, I am just simply asking this officer.

THE COURT: All right, I will permit it.

MR. WALLACE:Exception, please.

A. All latent prints are not identifiable, no.  Some are

smeared to the extent they can’t be identified but there are

maybe a couple of ridges there that indicates that it is a

latent print but still unidentifiable.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) And just because fingerprints are

present does not necessarily mean that they lead to the accused

in all cases, does it?

A No.

MR. TRUSTER:No further questions.

RECROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Officer McCullough, subject to your view of these

reports were there any prints found on that gun?

A Pertaining to the defendant?

Q. Yes, sir.

A No, sir.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. That is all I have.

MR. TRUSTER: Any fingerprints recovered of

anybody on that gun as far as you know?

THE COURT: That is as far as we can go.

MR. TRUSTER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Step down.

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, at this time the State

would ask leave of the Court and permission of the Court to

circulate all of the exhibits heretofore marked into evidence

and admitted by Your Honor. I

THE COURT: Okay. This will take some time.

I suppose we ought to divide the exhibits up in two sections and

start them from the top and from the bottom and the jurors will

remain in the jury box until such time as the exhibits have

progressed through. You can do it rather speedily because of

the fact that you will be able to further examine the exhibits

when you begin your deliberation. That bullet, be careful, the

Exhibit is small.

This will take a few minutes and counsel may move around

or maneuver if you desire while this is proceeding. The jurors

should not talk among themselves concerning the exhibits or

any portion or anything to do with them. You may only look at

them at this point in time, you may only look at them and reserve

your questions for later on.

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, the State would rest

its case,

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, would the Court enter‑

tain a short recess in chambers.

THE COURT: We will take a recess at this time.

Counsel, if you will approach the bench.

We will take a 10‑minute recess at this time. Bear in

mind the admonition of the Court.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had in chambers.)

MR. WALLACE: Comes now the defendant, James

Scott Bauhaus, renews all of his previous motions, objections

in this matter, renews his motion for mistrial at this time on

the grounds that Mr. Truster’s continual leading questions have

forced me to object to prejudice the defendant’s rights to a

fair trial; Mr. Truster’s statement as to the defendant having

the same cleft as he had on October 17th, 1972, and also the

prejudicial testimony as to the crime rate in Tulsa County, all

of which combined effectively denies defendant a fair and

impartial trial.

Move to dismiss this case at this time on the failure of

the State to prove all of the elements of murder as alleged in

the information of the State.

Comes further the defendant and demurs to the evidence

elicited by the State that the same is totally insufficient to

prove this defendant guilty of the charge of murder, specifically

in that the intent necessary in this crime, specific intent and

premeditated design has totally and insufficiently been estab‑

lished.

THE COURT:Denied.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

(Thereafter the following procedure was had in open court.)

THE COURT: It has been brought to the atten‑

tion of the Court that the afternoon Tulsa Tribune has an article.

about the trial. Have any of you jurors read it or observed that

paper or the article in the Tulsa Tribune? Any one of you?

JUROR BACK: I haven’t seen the afternoon

Tribune.

THE COURT:Now, ladies and gentlemen of the

jury, the State has completed its evidence and now Mr. Wallace

will put on evidence for the defendant. Mr. Wallace, you have

previously made your opening statement so you will start right

in with the evidence.

MR. WALLACE:    Yes, we will call Mrs. Judy Cole

at this time.

THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please,

ma’am Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to

give in the cause now on trial will be the the whole

truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

WITNESS: I do.

JUDY COLE

called as a  witness on behalf of the defendant, testified as

follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Would you state your name for the record, please,

ma’am?

A. Judy Cole.

Q. And where do you reside, please?

A. 1132 South Quincy.

Q. And are you employed at this time, ma’am?

A No.

Q. Ma’am, directing your attention to October 17th, 1972,

did anything unusual happen to you on that day, ma’am?

A. Unusual?

Q. Let me rephrase it. Are you familiar with the

defendant, James Bauhaus?

A Yes.

Q. And how do you know him, ma’am?

A Well, he is my husband’s cousin.

Q. And have you entertained him socially before?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Directing your attention to October 17,1972.

you have occasion to see Mr. Bauhaus on that day?

A Yes, I did.

Q. And how do you remember that date, please, ma’am?

A. Well, I haves girl friend and she came by to get me

to go shopping and we were shopping for her father, his birthday

was the next day and that  is how I remember it.

Q. What’s your girl friend’s name, please?

A. Pam Garrison.

Q. And did you all go shopping that day?

A. Uh‑huh.

Q. Did you subsequently return to your home at that

time after shopping?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately what time was that?

A. Well, it was around 2:00 o’clock:

Q. And how can you fix that time in your mind, please,

ma’am?

  A Well, there is a soap opera on that I watch and it’s

called Another World and it comes on around 2:00 o’clock.

Q. How long does that program last?

A Well, it’s on for 30 minutes.

Q. And would you tell me if you saw Mr.Bauhaus when you

arrived home at that time?

A Yes.

Q. And again, please, did you turn the television on that

day?

AUh‑huh.

Q. And was this soap opera, Another World, on at that

time?

A. Yeah, it had just came on, it had been on for a little

while.

Q. But it was still in  progress?

A. Uh‑huh.

Q.     I assume that would mean it was before 2:30, is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember what Mr. Bauhaus had on that day,

ma’am? 

A No, he had clothes on but I just never paid any

attention.

Q. Did he leave your residence again that day?

A. Well, he didn’t leave any time that day except for

10:00 o’clock that night, somewhere around 10:00.

MR. WALLACE:          Very good. I believe that is all .

I have. Thank you, Mrs. Cole.

CROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. You are not wearing a watch here today, are you,

ma’am?

A Huh‑uh.

Q. Did you wear a watch on October 17th; 1972?

A No.

Q. How about the 16th?

A. No, I don’t, I never have owned a watch.

Q. Never have owned a watch. The only way you fix the

time of  then is by this program called Another world, is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Mrs. Cole, do you know where Pam Garrison lives now?

A. Yes, she lives at 1105 East Seventh Street.

Q. 1105 East Seventh. Is she married?

A.Yes

Q.Whom does she live with?

A. Her husband.

Q. And his name?

A.  Kent Garrison.

Q. Kent Garrison?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Now, you state to the Court and jury that you were

present on that day of October the 17th at your residence?

A Yes.

Q. Was Pam Garrison there too?

A No, she had just let me off.

Q. Did not come in? .

A No, she let me off in the driveway.

Q. And James Bauhaus was there?

A No.

Q. He was not?

A He wasn’t there at that time, he came just right after

she left.

Q. Oh, I see. Then counsel asked you when you arrived

home you saw the defendant, but this was sometime later?

A Yeah.

Q. What time?

A Well, it was between 2:00 o’clock and a little after.

Q. And again you fix that by virtue of the TV program,

Another World. All right.  Now, how do you remember so well,

please, ma’am, the date of October 17th? .

A Well, because the next day was her father’s birthday.

Q. Now, you are speaking of Pam Garrison?

A Yes, and we were out, we were trying to figure out

whether to give him a party or just bake a cake, ask him to come

out and have supper. She said she might just wait and give

him a present for Christmas.

Q. Was that the first time you were ever aware that

Pam’s father had a birthday on October 18th?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. That very first time?.

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Had you known Pam Garrison before that particular

October?

A Well, I had known her for a couple of years but her and

her husband went to Arizona, he was stationed in the Marines and

they came back.

Q. were you a good friend of theirs, both of them or one

of them?

A Well, yeah, pretty good.

Q. Did you see Pam in October of 19712

A No, I believe they were in Arizona.

Q.How about in October of 1970?

A ,No.

Q     Had they visited your home at any time prior in those

two years that you say you have known her?

A. Well, my husband and her husband grew up together and

the are real good friends.

Q. But you weren’t really that close to Pam Garrison

until this October the 17th, is that right?

A Well, I don’t know, we were just friends.

Q. Well, when did you start going shopping with Pam

Garrison, please, ma’am?

A Well, since her and her husband came back from Arizona

Q. When was that?

AIt was probably a year before that.

Q.What month?

A I don’t know.

Q. Came back to Tulsa?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. You don’t remember the month though. The year before,

you say?

A No, it was sometime in December, it was around

Christmas.

Q. December of what year?

A ’71.

Q. And prior in October in ’71 they were where?

A In Arizona, I guess, is what they told everybody.

Q. Now, on how many occasions, please, ma’am, had you

been or‑gone shopping with Pam Garrison prior to October 17th,

1972?

A Well, I don’t know exactly. Quite a few.

Q. In your best estimate? Quite a few?

A Quite a few times, yes, her and I were, she would come

over all of the time.

Q.How many times a week is all of the time?

A Oh, she would come over at least three times a week

because she has a car and I didn’t.

Q. You did not have a car?

A No, my husband had it at work, he had to use it to get

back and forth to work.

Q. And did her husband come over on those occasions that

she would come over and visit you? ..

A No, he worked. They had two cars.

Q. Did you ever entertain she and her husband in your

home socially prior to October 17th?

A Yes.

Q. How many occasions?

A Well, I really don’t know, quite a few. They used

to come over just about every week end.

Q. So it would be a fair statement that you were very

close friends would you not say in October of 1972 with the

Garrisons?

A Yeah.

Q. All right. Now, do you have a family, please, ma’am?

A Yes.

Q. How many?

A Well, I have a daughter, two daughters, one is eight

and the other is two.

Q Eight and two?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And they live with you at your home?

A Yes.

Q. On the 17th of October, ’72, how many children did you

have at that time?

A Two.

Q. The same two, different. ages then?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Were they home that day, please, ma’am?

A. One was in school and the other one was with me.

Q. The one in school, what is that child’s name?

A Yvonne.

Q. How old was she then?

AAbout six.

Q. How about the one that was home?

A She wasn’t but maybe seven or eight months old.

Q. And did you take your child with you shopping, you and

Pam?

A Yeah.

Q. All right. Now, what time did you leave that morning?

A Oh, I would say around 10:00, something like that.

Q.10:00 o’clock in the morning?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And again whose idea was it to go shopping that

particular day?

AWell, it was hers, she came over to get me.

Q. Well, did you have a telephone that day in your house?

A No.

Q. You had no phone?

A No.

Q. So the first time you saw her was 10:00 o’clock that

morning, is that correct? .

A Yes.

Q. How long did she stay inside your home on that day

before you went?

A Oh, maybe 30 minutes. She was waiting on me to get

ready.

Q. And you had no idea prior to this time that you were

going shopping till she came over?

A Huh‑uh.

Q. All right. Now, you left then and went shopping.

Where did you go?

A I went to Belscots and Penney’s and several other

places, shopping centers.

Q.Several other places?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And did you stay in the accompaniment of Pam the whole

time?

A Yeah.

Q. Had your baby with you. Now, what time again, please,

ma’am,.did you return?

AWell, we got home around 2:00.

Q. Now, you say that the accused, James Scott Bauhaus,

had came over to your house after Pam left?

A Yeah.

Q. She did not come in?

A No.

Q. All right. Now, was this unusual for Mr. Bauhaus to

come over to your house?

A No.

Q. How many times did he come to your house before

October 17th, 1972?

A Well, quite a few times. 

Q.How many?

A.I don’t know the exact number.

Q. During the day or during the evening?

A Well, he used to come over, I would say at least three

or four times a week and ‑‑

Q. Evening or day?

A Well, just depends, some days ‑‑ 

Q. On what?

AWell, I don’t know.

Q. You mean he just dropped in unexpectedly?

A Yeah, he would just drop in.

Q. Some evening, some daytime?

A Yes.

Q. Did your husband work then, please, ma’am?

A Yes.

Q. And he was not home when James came over on October

17th?

A No.

Q. On those occasions just prior to October 17th, ’72,

please, ma’am, you stated that James came over sometime during

the daytime, is that right?

A Yes.

Q. And would he remain at the house till your husband

came home or what?

A Sometimes he would and then he would just come by and

talk and then he would say, well, I will be back later on;

sometimes he would come back that night.

Q. On those visits that he came in the afternoon, please,

Ma’am, what would you say his general routine was, to stay until

your husband got home or leave and come back later? .

A Oh, sometimes he would stay until my husband got home

and sometimes he would just, you know, come over and talk and

then leave.

Q. But on this occasion on October 17th he never left

until 10:00 o’clock that night, is that what you are telling the

Court and jury?

A Right.

Q.How was he dressed?

A Well, I really don’t remember, I mean, it was just any

other day, I never, you know, just sat down and examined what

he had on.

Q. Did you have a conversation with James that day?

A Yes.

Q. What conversation did you have?

A Well, we talked about several things.

Q. What did you talk about?

AReligion for one thing.

Q. And what brought that subject about?

A Well, I believe he mentioned something about people

he knew some people that were Jesus freaks and how happy they

were and I agreed, yeah, they were happy.

Q. Did he ever mention that he was in trouble?

A No.

Q. What was his employment that day, please, ma’am, if

you know?

A What was his what?

Q. Employment.

A I don’t really know, I mean, I know he worked at Kip’s

for a long time but, you know.

Q.Was he working October 17th?

A He was at my house, he wasn’t working.

Q. How about October 16th?

AI don’t really know.

Q. 15th?

A I don’t know that either. I know that he worked at

Kip’s.

Q. Do you know the hours that he worked at Kip’s,

please, ma’am?

A No.

Q. You do not. And you do not know then whether or not

he was employed at all on October 17th, ’72, do you?

A Well, I know he worked at Kip’s and he never said,

told me that he didn’t have a job. I just figured, well, he

still works at Kip’s.

Q. Did he ever say that he had to go to work at night or

work the late shift when he left at 10:00 o’clock?

A . On that day?

Q. Yes.

A Oh, no, but I know he did work different hours.

Q. He did?

A Yeah.

Q. He didn’t mention anything about his employment to you

during the course of your conversation though, did he?

A No.

Q. And he didn’t mention that he had been in trouble

or anything of that nature? All right. How did he appear to

you, please, ma’am, on the 17th when you first observed him?

How did he come to your residence, tell the Court and jury

that.

A Well, he came in a car.

Q.What kind of car?

A It was a maroon and white Buick, I believe.

Q. What year?

A I don’t know the year.

Q. Two door or four door, if you know?

A. It’s a two door.

Q. Does he still have that car?

  A I don’t know if he does or not.

Q. Did he have it on October 17th?

A Yeah.

Q.Anybody come with him?

A Huh‑uh. .

Q. Had he had it prior to October 17th?

AHad he had that car?

Q. Yes, ma’am.

A Yeah.

Q. All right. Now, how did he gain entry into your

residence, please, ma’am?

A Well, he knocked on the door.

Q. After he knocked did you walk to the door and let him

in?

A Yes.

Q. You don’t recall how he was dressed at that time?

A Huh‑uh.

Q. Did he require any medical aid at that time, ma’am?

A No.

Q Did. you observe any cuts or bruises on Mr. Bauhaus

immediately prior to October 17th?

A Huh‑uh.

Q. Did you see Mr. Bauhaus October 18th? .

A I don’t believe I did the next day, huh‑uh:

Q. Any reason why you state that, ma’am?

A Well, I don’t believe I was home, like I said, the

next day was Pam Garrison’s dad’s birthday and I believe my .

husband and I went out there to her house.

Q.Are you sure about that?

A Well ‑‑ yeah.

Q. You are?

A Yeah.

Q. Was James Scott Bauhaus a friend of Pam and Kent

Garrison’s, also?

A Oh, I don’t think he was, you know, really good

friends. They knew him.

Q. Had you ever entertained Pam and Kent in your home

while James was there?

A Yes.

Q. How many occasions?

A I would say four or five.

Q. Just four or five?

A Yeah, not very many.

Q. And they got along all right?

A Yeah.

Q. No arguments?

A No.

Q. Did you see Pam and Kent Garrison that day, October

17th?

A Yes.

Q. What time?

A Well, I saw Pam in the morning and then after she let

me off she went to get her husband to wait for him to get off

work and then they came back to my house.

Q. What time did they get back?

A I don’t know exactly, it was around 5:30, something

like that.

Q How do you fix that time?

A Well, because the TV was on.

Q. What program was on that time?

A Truth or Consequences and it comes on around 5:00 or

5:30.

Q. And was the TV on the entire afternoon, ma’am?

A Oh, no.

Q. It wasn’t. When did you turn it back on?

A Was it on the entire afternoon?

Q.Yes, ma’am.

A When I got home, yes,  I always turn the TV on.

Q.Yes, ma’am, when did you turn it off?

A Well, my husband usually turns it off when he gets

home.

Q. So it was on continuously throughout that afternoon?

A My little girl watches cartoons.

Q. And so you were able to tell whether or not Mr.

Bauhaus was present, were you not, then, ma’am, at 3:00 o’clock

on October 17th in the afternoon, 1972. What program, tell

the Court and jury, was on at that hour then?

A At 3:00 o’clock?

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I don’t believe Mrs.

Cole is here testifying as to TV programs.

MR. TRUSTER: That is how she keeps time, if

the Court please.

MR. WALLACE: She has referred to a specific

program.

THE COURT: I will permit it.

A Well, there is another story that I watch that comes

on after Another world, Somerset. .

Q What?

A. Somerset.

Q. Somerset?

A Yeah.

Q. What time is that show on?

A Oh, I believe it comes on after Another World, it’s

on the same channel.

Q. You didn’t change the channels that day, did you?

A. Yeah:

Q.You did?

A Yeah, my little girl changes it to watch cartoons.

Q. Was Mr. Bauhaus there at 4:00 o’clock?

A Was he there at 9:007

Q. Yes, ma’am. am.

A Yes.

Q. How do you fix that hour? 

AWell, because he never left when he got there.

Q. What program were you watching at 4:00 o’clock?

A I don’t know.

Q. Ma’am, did your husband come home that evening?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. What time did he get home?.

A Well, he gets home around 5:00….

Q. On the 17th, not the usual time he gets home. Did he

get home at 5:00 o’clock October 17th, 1972?

ADid he get home at 5:00?

Q. Yes, ma’am.

A Not exactly. He gets off at 4:30 and it takes him

15 minutes, maybe more, to get home.

Q. Mr. Bauhaus was there too at the same time?

A Yes.

Q. Never left?

A Huh‑uh.

Q.For anything?

A Huh‑uh.

Q. Where did you live, please, ma’am, on October 17th,

1972?

A It was out on North Evanston, I don’t recall the

address.

Q. Well, how about a hundred block on North Evanston?

A I don’t recall that because we didn’t live there

very long.

Q. How long did you live there?

A We lived there around three months.

Q. Three months?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. From when to when?

A Probably ‑‑ well, it was from September to around

November.

Q. 1972?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. What type of residence did you have there?

A It was a house, three‑bedroom house.

Q.Just a single family dwelling?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Now, did you entertain in your home the evening of

October 17th?

A Yeah.

Q.  All of the parties present once they got there, did

they stay there?

A Yes.

Q. The whole time?

A. Well, Pam and I went to the store and we got some pop

and some beer and everybody played cards.

Q.Everybody played cards?

A Uh‑huh.

Q.Mr.. Bauhaus remained there, your husband remained

there and Kent Garrison remained there the entire time up until

they left, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q.Does your husband work now, ma’am?

A Yes.

Q. Where does he work?

A Dowell Chemical Company.

Q. And I am sorry if I ask it again, where do you live

presently?

A 1132 South Quincy.

Q. Okay. Is that an apartment house?

A Apartment number one.

Q Now, ma’am, when did you first become aware that the

defendant, James Bauhaus, was charged with this crime of

murder having alleged to have occurred on October 17th,

1972?

AWell, I read it in the papers.

Q.You read it in the papers?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. When?

AAfter he had been put in jail for another ‑‑

something else.

Q. And what month was that, ma’am?

A That was in, I don’t know for sure, it was ‑‑ I know

it was a couple of months after he had been put in jail.

Q. Well, when, please, if you can recall?

A Well, it was around November or December. .

Q. Now, November or December. How about November ‑

what year, please, ma’am?

A In ’72.

Q. In 1972 in November that you first became aware of Mr.

Bauhaus being charged with this offense of the murder of

Jefferson Dee Hunt?

A I believe so.

Q. And in what newspaper did you read that, ma’am?

A It was the Tribune,  I guess.

Q. Did you have a newspaper delivered to your home when

you were living at this address on North whatever it is?

A Yes.

Q. You did. Morning or evening paper?

A We took the paper, the morning and the evening paper.

Q. Took both papers?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And you recall reading about it in the Tulsa Tribune,

the evening paper?

  A Yes.

I Q. Now, you indicated November or December.  Can you

pinpoint whether or not it was one or the other?

A. No.

Q. If it would have been in November would it have been

in the first part of the month or the second part?

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your Honor,

she has answered she can’t remember.

THE COURT: I will overrule for the purpose

of refreshment of memory.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

THE COURT: Allowed.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Yes, ma’am, you may answer if it

would have been in the month of November that you read about it

in the Tribune, would it have been the first half of the month

or the second half?

A Well, I just really don’t remember. It was, I guess

it was the last part of the month.

Q. All right. Now, if it would have been during the

month of December would it have been the first part of the

month or the last part?

A Probably the first.

Q. So either the last part of November or the first part

of December?

A Yes.

Q. That you read that this defendant, James, your friend,

was charged with the murder of Mr. Hunt?

A Yes.

Q. All right. Now, what did you do, please, ma’am, upon

reading that article in the Tribune?

A What did I do?

Q.Yes, ma’am.

A Well, when I read the date on there and ‑‑

Q. What day was that again?

A Well, they said that it was, in the paper it said that

it was October 17th. .

Q. You mean you don’t have any independent recollection

of October 17th other than the papers, fixing that date to it?

A Well, the fact that my girl friend’s father’s birthday

was on the next day, that is ‑‑

Q. So you were aware that October 17th was when this man

was charged to have committed the crime of murder of Mr. Hunt as

you read it in the Tribune, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q. All right. Now, upon realizing the date involved what

did you do then, please, ma’am?

A Well, I told my husband and my husband and I told

Jimmy’s father.

Q. You told your husband. What day did you tell your

husband?

A. What day did I tell him what?

Q. Yes, ma’am, that you told him of the article and the

date involved?

A I told him that October 17th, that Jimmy was at my

house

  Q. No, excuse me, ma’am, I am sorry, I don’t mean to

confuse you. What date or day and month did you, after reading

the article in the Tribune reporting that this defendant was

charged with the crime of murder of Mr. Hunt, did you then

tell your husband of that date that you recalled Mr. Bauhaus being

at your residence?

A Well, it was in either the last part of November or

the first part of December.

Q. Well, was it the same evening you read the article,

ma’am, let me ask you that?

A Yes.

Q. The very same evening?

A. Uh‑huh.

Q. About what time that evening?

A Well, it was in the evening time, it must have been

around 6:00 o’clock. My husband gets the paper and reads it.

Q. All right. Now, what did you do upon telling your

husband that?

AWell, we told Jimmy’s father.

Q. And what is Jimmy’s father name?

A Paul.

Q. Paul?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. You say we told him. How did you and your husband

tell Jimmy’s father?

A Well, we just told him in person.

Q. Oh, in person?

A Yes.

Q. You did not have a telephone? .

A No.

Q. Did you live in the same place when you read that in

the newspaper?

A Yes.

Q. Where did this conversation with Jimmy’s father take

place?

A It was at Jimmy’s father’s brother’s house.

QJimmy’s father’s brother’s?

A Yes.

Q. So that is Jimmy’s uncle’s house, is that right?

A Yes.

Q. Where is that located?

A 1230 South St. Louis.

Q. 1230 South St. Louis. And that conversation was

divulged to Jimmy’s father that same evening?

  A Yes.

Q. About what time?

AWell, it was late in the evening.

Q. And who all was present at that conversation?

A Jimmy’s uncle and his father and my husband and I.

Q. Just the four of you?

A Uh‑huh.

Q.at Jimmy’s uncle’s house?

A Yes.

Q. And that is when you and your husband told of the

incident and the date that you remembered?

A Yes.

Q. And this was sometime in either November or December.

All right. Did you have any further conversation or did you do

anything else involved with the communication of your information

that you had?

A Well, we told Jimmy’s father and he said that he would

contact Jimmy’s lawyer that he had and so my husband–

Q. Do you know who that was, by the way?

A No.

MR. WALLACE: Object as incompetent and

immaterial, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) You do not know?

A No.

Q Go ahead.

A The father told us later that there wasn’t anything

that they could do about it until he was brought to Tulsa County

or Oklahoma County.

Q. Did you do anything else yourself in regard to the

information that you had other than this conversation that you

had with Jimmy’s father?

A Well, yeah, I talked with you.

Q. Right, you sure did, after the State having notice of

the alibi defense in the case. That was a week ago, was it

not, ma’am?

A Yes.

Q. When did you first talk to Mr. Wallace?

AAbout a week ago.

Q. And that is the first or the only other time that you

communicated this information that James Bauhaus was present in

your home the entire day from 2:00 or 2:15 in the afternoon of

October 17th, ’72, is that right?

A Yes.

Q. Did you ever visit your friend in jail?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever communicate with him in any way?

A Well, I wrote him a letter.

Q. When was that?

A It was when he was ‑‑ they had him in Pawhuska County

jail, my husband and I both wrote to him.

Q. What month, please, ma’am, if you recall?

A I really can’t recall, it was a short time after they

had him in custody. . .

Q. Was that sometime from December or November of 1972

until a week ago, 1974?

A It was two or three months after he had been in

custody.

Q. Did you ever receive any communication from him?

A Yes.

Q. How many?

A  I believe my husband and I both just received about

three letters from him.

Q. Did they mention the information that you had written

to him about your memory of October 17th, ’72? .

A Well, I just told him that I believe he was at my house

that day.

Q. You believe that he was at your house that day?

A Yes, Yes.

Q. You are not sure?

A Well, I know he was at my house.

Q. Did you tell Pam Garrison of this information?

A  Did I tell her?

Q. Yes, ma’am.

A She knew about it.

Q. How did she know about it?

AShe read it in the paper.

Q. No, I mean of the fact that Mr. Bauhaus was there

between the hours of 2:15 and 3:00 o’clock?

A She was there too, she was there after 5:30.

Q. After 5:30?

A Uh‑huh.

Q.Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But she was not there between the hours of 2:00 till

3:15 or 3:30?

A No.

Q. Then she did not know anything about Mr. Bauhaus’

presence unless she had that information from you?

MR. WALLACE: We object, she couldn’t know what

Mrs. Garrison knew or did not know.

THE COURT: I will sustain.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Did you tell her he was with

you that whole time?

A Yes.

Q. Did you tell her husband, Kent?

A No, he didn’t really ask me.

Q. Was he present when you told Pam Garrison that James

Bauhaus was present from 2:00 for the entire afternoon?

A He was in the house but he was in the other room;

her and I were in the living room.

Q. So you did not convey that information to him then,

right?

A No.

Q. Now, ma’am, your husband was aware of it, of course,

and those were the only other persons present according to your

testimony on October 17th, ’72?

A. Well, there was another friend of my husband’s there.

Q. Oh, who was that?

ANeil Williams.

Q. Neil Williams?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. Do you know where Neil Williams lives now?

A He lives on South Florence, I don’t know the address.

Q. in an apartment or a house, if you know?

A A house.

Q. A house on South Florence. When is the last time you

saw Neil Williams?  

A Sunday.

Q.What day?

A Sunday.

Q. Oh, this Sunday?

A Yes.

Q.This last Sunday?

A Yes.

Q. When is the last time that you saw Pam Garrison?

A It was a couple of weeks ago.

Q. Where?

A She was at my house.

When is the last time that you saw her husband, Kent

Garrison?

A At the same time, he was at my house, too.

Q. On those occasions did you tell Pam or Kent Garrison

that you were coming to court to testify on behalf of the

defendant? 

A No.

Q. You did not?

A.Huh‑uh.

Q. You knew that you would be coming though, didn’t you?

A Yes.

Q. Then I take it you never asked them to appear?

A Well –

Q. Did you, yes or no?

A Did I what?

Q. Ask them to appear in behalf of the defendant in this

case?

A. Yes, but not at that time.

Q. When?

A I don’t know, it was a couple of days ago.

Q. A couple of days ago?

  A Uh‑huh.

Q.What did they say?

A Well, Pam said, yeah, she would be glad to come.

Q.She would be glad to come?

A Uh‑huh.

Q. And what did Kent say?

A Well, I didn’t talk to him. I just talked with her on

the phone.

Q. Do you know where Pam Garrison is today?

AShe is probably at home.

Q. Not down here at the courthouse?

A No.

Q. Did you communicate that information that you had

concerning the innocence of this defendant to anyone else other

than those persons that you have testified during this entire

time from November or December, 1972, until here June the 4th,

1974?

A You mean did I talk with anyone about it?

Q. Yes, ma’am.

A No, just the people I have mentioned.

Q. All right. Then I take it you did not phone the

police department or inform them, did you?

A No, because —

Q. You did not, that is fine, just answer my questions.

Did you call the district attorney’s office and inform us prior

to coming in after Mr. Wallace gave us the notice?

A No.

Q. You did not. But you are asking this Court and jury

to turn this man loose based upon your testimony, is that what

you are testifying to?

A I am just testifying he was at my home that day.

Q. But you are asking this  jury to turn this man loose

based upon your testimony, aren’t you?

AI guess so, yes.

MR. TRUSTER: No further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. Mrs. Cole, these previous times you have entertained

the Garrisons in your house, were any of those times a date when

somebody in your family was charged with murder?

A No.

Q. Were there any cuts on Mr. Bauhaus’ arms that day?

A No.

Q. Have you ever had occasion since then on any of these

dates of entertaining any of these people that you have pre‑

viously mentioned, when you have been entertaining them have you

had occasion to have somebody in your family charged with

murder on any of those days?

A No.

Q. And to go along with that, were any of those days also

the day before Mrs. Garrison’s father’s birthday?

  A No.

Mrs. Cole, did you receive the paychecks Mr. Bauhaus

got from his employment?

A Did I what?

Q. Did you get the paychecks that Mr. Bauhaus got?

MR. TRUSTER: Excuse me, Your Honor, I object,

outside the scope of cross.

MR. WALLACE: He brought up where he was working.

MR. TRUSTER: Never mind, I will withdraw it, I

would like to hear it.

MR. WALLACE: You will.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Did you receive the paychecks from

Mr. Bauhaus?

A No.

Q. So it wasn’t your duty to keep track of what hours

Mr. Bauhaus worked at all, was it?

A No.

Q. Did Mr. Bauhaus live with you?

A No.

Q. There were occasions when you wouldn’t see him from

day to day, isn’t that correct? Have you ever seen Mr. Bauhaus

in a pair of tennis shoes?

A No.

Q. Ma’am, would you consider yourself a soap opera fan?

A Yes.

Q. Is Another World specifically one of your favorites?

A Yes.

Q. Did you watch it with regularity?

A Well, I try to, yes.

Q. And can you tell me what time that show comes on?

A 2:00.

A. It has been your testimony here today that Mr.

Bauhaus arrived at your house during the presentation of this

show?

A Yes.

MR. WALLACE: That is all I have. Thank you,

ma’am.

RECROSS‑EXAMINATION

BY MR. TRUSTER:

Q. You don’t remember what he was wearing at all on the

17th of October, ’72, do you?

A Well, he had clothes on.

Q. But you don’t know what kind and you don’t know whether

he had any cuts on his arms or not, do you?

A Well, I am sure if he had a cut I would have noticed.

Q. Did he arrive there with anybody else?

A No.

Q. Stayed there by himself with you the whole time?

A Yes.

Q. Nobody came or went?

A No.

Q. Other than the persons you have already testified to.

Yet you wait until a week ago to tell the law enforcement

authorities that this man is innocent and could not possibly

have committed the crime, is that what you are saying?

A Well, like I said, his father said there wasn’t much

they could do until he was brought back to Tulsa County.

Q. And you never thought about calling the police and

telling them that they had an innocent man, did you?

A Well, his father got his information from the lawyer

so I just thought, well, he ought to know what he is talking

about.

Q. But you didn’t take it upon yourself to contact

anybody, did you?

A. No.

MR TRUSTER: No further questions.

MR. WALLACE:Mrs. Cole ‑‑

THE COURT: We have exhausted redirect. Do

you want another redirect?

MR. WALLACE: Just one question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Q. When you came down to see me did I ask you to go

immediately and talk to Mr. Truster?

A Yes.

MR. TRUSTER: I object to that, outside the

scope.

Q. (By Mr. Wallace) Did he see you at that time or

did he make you wait?

MR. TRUSTER: I am going to object.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

MR. WALLACE: I have nothing further.

MR. TRUSTER: I have nothing further of this

witness.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mrs. Cole. Your Honor,

would the Court entertain a short recess at this time due to the

lateness of the hour. I anticipate possibly resting and then

continuing with instructions in the morning.

THE COURT: Excuse the jury. The jury then

will be excused until ‑‑

MR. TRUSTER: Excuse me, Your Honor, may we

approach the bench.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

that will complete the testimony for the day. Now, as you go

to your homes I want you to be informed that members of your

family no doubt know that you are on the jury; you are not to

discuss this case with them nor permit them to tell you what

they have read or heard about the case and I do not want any of

you to read the articles that will appear in tonight’s paper

and tomorrow morning’s paper probably and whether they have

anything on the news, you are prohibited from listening to the

newscasts, the regular newscasts. I know for Mr. Back it will

be a chore that you will have to stay away from the newscasts

on the radio. I don’t want any information, I don’t want you

to receive any information however devious or by innuendo and

that would include having somebody tell you what they read

about the case. You are not to receive any type of information

about this case in any manner, you are not to make any effort

to make any investigation about any fact. You must rely exclus‑

ively, totally upon the information that has been produced here

in the courtroom.

JUROR BACK: Could I make a request of the

Court? Could I give the Court a dime to buy me a Tribune and

cut that article out so that I could read the paper tonight?

THE COURT: Yes, you can have somebody cut

out the article and go ahead. But I don’t want you to find out

what the article was until after the case is over. Now, you

all understand that and you all understand it is very important

that you not receive any information about this case and that

you do not form any conclusions until all of the evidence is in.

You are excused to report back. It will probably be 10:00

o’clock before we can get started in the morning. 10:00 o’clock

tomorrow morning. You are excused.

(Thereafter on June 5, 1979, the State of Oklahoma appearing

by Jerry Truster, Assistant District Attorney; the defendant

present, appearing by and through his attorney, James E. Wallace

the following proceedings were had in case number CRF‑73‑24.)

THE COURT: I would inquire of the jurors

collectively and individually, have any of you jurors received

any information about this case other than what has transpired

here in the courtroom? Now, there were articles in the evening

Tribune and the morning World. Have any of you read those

articles or had them read to you or received any information about

them? You tell me that all you know about this case is what you

have heard here in the courtroom, is that correct? Now, I know,

of course, that there have been articles published that make

reference to one or two things that did not transpire here in

the courtroom and I will charge the jurors that when you go back

to deliberate, that if any juror brings up anything outside the

evidence, then you should caution that juror that that would

not be proper to be brought before your consideration. I don’t

mean by that you are precluded from bringing up things or

incidents that are in common with each of the jurors but you

must not go outside the record and bring up matters that are

not properly before you, do you understand. You have not

formed your conclusions or made any investigation about this

matter? 

The Court certifies the jury free from taint.

MR. WALLACE: The defense at this time would

rest, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The defense rests. I would then

inquire of the state, do you have rebuttal testimony?

MR. TRUSTER: Yes, Your Honor, the State would

offer rebuttal testimony in the form of the librarian, the

keeper of the records of the Tulsa World and the Tulsa Tribune,

Mrs. Lucille Towry. She will arrive, Your Honor, in about 30

minutes. I had no indication what the announcement would be

so she will be here by a quarter till 11:00.

THE COURT: The jurors are excused until

that time and I would prefer that you do not go around any of

the witnesses and kind of remain away from any activity around

this courtroom until a quarter of 11:00 and be available to be

called in at that time. You are excused. Now, we will be

making records out of the presence of the jurors so it is

important that you do not be around the courtroom itself. You

are excused.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had outside

the presence of the jury.)

MR. WALLACE: Comes now the defendant, James

Scott Bauhaus, and moves for a mistrial upon the prejudicial

comments made by Assistant District Attorney Jerry Truster in

reference to Mrs. Cole’s failure to come in and testify for the

accused when under the principles of the law Mr. Truster is

familiar that at a preliminary hearing all that is needed is

to establish probable cause and Mrs. Cole’s testimony would be

of no benefit to the defendant at that stage and his highly

prejudicial comments deprive defendant of a fair trial.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: Exception allowed.

  (Thereafter the following proceedings were had in the

presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Counsel approach the bench.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Back, it has been called to

my attention that you entered the press room during the recess,

is that correct or not correct?

JUROR BACK: Just a few minutes ago.

MR. WALLACE: Did you observe any newspaper

articles or have any discussion with anybody about this case?

  JUROR BACK: No, sir, I did not.

MR. WALLACE: That is all. Very well, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: The State desires to put on

rebuttal testimony.

MR. TRUSTER: Yes, Your Honor, our witness is

present and we are ready.

THE COURT: You may call the witness.

MR. TRUSTER: Call Mrs. Lucille Towry.

THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please,

ma’am. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to

give in the cause now on trial will be the truth, the whole

truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

LUCILLE TOWRY,

called as a witness in rebuttal, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALLACE:

Q. State your name for the Court, record and jury, please,

ma’am?

A Lucille Towry.

Q. What is your business, profession or occupation?

A Librarian for the Newspaper Printing Corporation.

Q. How long have you been employed in that capacity?

A I went into the library in November of ’67 and was made

head of the department in ’71, September of ’71.

Q. Is this the first time you have ever been a witness

in a case, ma’am?

A Yes, sir.

Q. If you don’t understand anything from the attorneys

of record just ask and we will try to get a straight question to

you, all right?

A All right.

Q. Mrs. Towry, let me ask you, ma’am, as part of your

duties as librarian do you have the duty of the care and

custody of newspaper articles?

A Yes.

Q. Would that be for both the World and the Tribune?

A Yes.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, did you have an

occasion to bring to court today newspaper articles concerning

a person by the name of Jefferson Dee Hunt?

  A Yes.

Q. And do you have those with you now?

A Yes.

Q. Did you also have the occasion to bring to court

today newspaper clippings concerning a person by the name of

James Scott Bauhaus?

A Yes.

Q. Do you have those with you?

A Yes.

Q. I will ask you, please, ma’am, if you would to take

out those articles concerning a person by the name of Jefferson

Dee Hunt.

A. All right.

Q. And would you look to see, please, ma’am, if any of

those articles concerning the homicide death of Jefferson Dee

Hunt mentions the name of James Scott Bauhaus, either the World

or the Tribune?

ANo, sir.

Q. None mention the name of James Scott Bauhaus concerning

the Jefferson Dee Hunt homicide?

A None at all.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, that question Mr.

Truster just asked, she testified no. I would ask Mr. Truster

not testify for the witness.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. TRUSTER: I just want the jury to under‑

stand the testimony.

MR. WALLACE: The jury heard the evidence.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) Now, Mrs. Towry, will you please

look at your newspaper file concerning a person by the name of

James Scott Bauhaus. Would you please, ma’am, look at those

clippings and determine whether any refer to Mr. Bauhaus in

connection with the Jefferson Dee Hunt homicide. Take your time.

A Do you want me to go through all of these or just

Mr. Hunt, according to the envelope here, was killed in

October of ’72.

Q. Yes, ma’am, if you would direct your attention to

October, 1972, with solely Mr. Jefferson Dee Hunt and the

defendant in this case, James Scott Bauhaus, October, November

and December, 1972.

THE COURT: We caution the jury not to attempt

to read anything that is in the newspaper clippings.

A No, I don’t.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) You find no article in either the

World or the Tribune from November, 1972, or December of 1972 ‑‑

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, once again this is

a trial tactic by Mr. Truster to re‑testify for the witness.

He asked this question previously and she said no, she didn’t.

THE COURT: It would be repetitious, counsel.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) I will ask you, please, ma’am,

is there an article in those that you have brought to court

indicating that the defendant, James Scott Bauhaus, was charged

with this crime of the murder of Jefferson Dee Hunt?

A No, sir, there wasn’t.

Q. You don’t have an article like that? .

A No.

Q.In that?

A No, I don’t.

Q. Have you been through all of these articles, please,

A.Not specifically.

MR. TRUSTER:We would invite counsel for the

defendant to approach this witness and examine the articles ‑‑

so long as we keep the piles straight, would that be agreeable

with you, ma’am?

THE WITNESS: Well, yes, it’s a little impossible

to keep them straight because I had to go through there and

separate.

Q. (By Mr. Truster) I notice, please, ma’am, that these

are all stamped with a blue date, is that correct?

A Yes, with a T for Tribune and W for World is how we

identify the clips.

MR. TRUSTER: Thank you, ma’am. I have no

further questions. .

MR. WALLACE:I have no questions. Thank you,

Mrs. Towry.

THE COURT: Step down. She may take her

clippings?

MR. TRUSTER: Clippings, yes. Thank you, ma’am.

The State would rest, Your Honor.  

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, the defendant would

offer a surrebuttal witness, however due to babysitter problems

she will not be able to arrive until approximately 1:00 o’clock.

If the Court will entertain taking an early noon recess.

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, may we approach the

bench and discuss that issue?

THE COURT: We will recess for five minutes

at this time.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had in chambers.)

MR. TRUSTER: May it please the Court, at this

time the State would ask leave of the Court to reopen the State’s

case in rebuttal for the limited purpose of presenting the

information as State’s Exhibit Number 22 in this

case as evidence. I simply neglected to do so at the conclusion

of Mrs. Towry’s testimony, it was a slip of mine and I  would

offer that as an official court file and document, if allowed to

reopen, and that would be the State’s request.

MR. WALLACE: To which the defendant would

object, the basis of this is the failure of the rebuttal witness

to come off effectively. The State has rested its case, the

defense has rested its case. The defendant would object to any

further offering by the State of any evidence at this time.

THE COURT: I presume to show when the charge

was filed. .

MR. TRUSTER: Yes, Your Honor, that would be the

only purpose of my doing so. I take issue with counsel’s comment

that it corroborates the rebuttal testimony of the State but

rather than be argumentative at this time I will make that

request.

THE COURT: I will permit it and allow an

exception to the defendant. in many jurisdictions the files

are sent into the jury room anyway but we do not adopt that

practice here.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

THE COURT: Now, the Court will endorse

upon the requested instructions for the defendant concerning

the eyewitness instruction, I will endorse my refusal to grant

it and allow an exception to the defendant. You may put that

as defendant’s instruction, proposed instruction number one,

requested instruction number one.

MR. WALLACE: I would object to the Court’s

refusal to allow us at this time to offer this instruction as

this is conjoint with our defense of alibi. It goes directly

to the defense we have offered, credibility of the eyewitnesses

in this case and would request at this time the following in‑

struction which we would entitle defendant’s requested instruc‑

tion number one in its entirety as follows.

THE COURT: We will have it and it will be

in the record rather than just to have to read it into the

record.

MR. WALLACE: Very good.

THE COURT: My refusal is based upon the fact

that it invades the province of the jury in evaluating and

attempting to set up a standard of evaluating one particular

witness for the defense and the Court feels that it’s amply

covered by the closing instruction which notifies the jury that

they are the sole judges of the facts, the weight of the

evidence and the credibility of the witnesses and sets a

standard up for the evaluation of all of the witnesses appearing

both for the State and for the defendant. Allow an exception

to the defendant and the Court will endorse upon the proposed

instruction its refusal to give, allow an exception and

incorporate it into the record on appeal if necessary.

MR. WALLACE: Very well. Exception, please.

THE COURT: All of the motions which have

been made previously will be readopted. The defense desires

to readopt them and the same rulings go as far as the motion to

dismiss or direct a verdict and that the Court will then start

the argument immediately upon the reading of the instructions.

And counsel will not want to be limited in your argument,  I

presume, is that correct? .

MR. TRUSTER: That is correct, Your Honor.

MR. WALLACE: . That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will notify the defense counsel

that if he waives argument that I will not permit counsel for

,the State to make a rebuttal argument. i will caution counsel

FOR the State since they are more restricted in their closing

argument, do not allude to the fact that the defendant does not

take the witness stand unless it is brought out by the argument

of defense counsel and then only upon approaching the bench to

announce to the Court or perhaps a recess to announce to the

Court that you claim invited attention to that fact.

MR. TRUSTER: Very well.

THE COURT: And nowhere should any inference

be drawn that the defendant has suffered difficulty in other

jurisdictions and comment upon, speculate in any way upon the

defendant’s difficulty in Osage County. I will notify counsel

for the defendant that you voir dired the jury on the fact,

You made the determination as to whether or not the defendant

would take the witness stand, since that was not actually a part

of the trial proceeding. If you inject the matter into your

closing argument it could very well be an invitation to counsel

for the State then to expand upon that failure of the defendant

to testify. I propose you to be vigorous. I can’t give you

a blanket exception to anything that is said, it may be necessary

of course, to interrupt counsel in their closing argument. I

now it’s a difficult tactical procedure for either of you to

o so because the jury then considers it your interruption. But !

want to tell both of you that I will give you reasonable lati‑

tude to discuss the issues in the case and draw inferences there‑

from but do not go completely outside the record and in approach‑

ing crime in general, 2 know we have got the 19 per cent burglary

rate involved, that that has to be approached with some

circumspect.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I would request at

this time the Court warn Mr. Truster in regard to inferences

drawn from Mrs. Cole’s failure to come forth prior.

THE COURT: I permitted her to be examined

on that fact and the rule of consistency would then, of course,

require me to permit him, if he desires, to comment upon the

failure of the alibi witness to notify law enforcement if it

was reasonably appropriate for her to do so.

MR. WALLACE: We would cite for the Court’s

approval at this time the case of Dupree versus State wherein

the Court of Criminal Appeals held that such was very improper

comments by the district attorney as her offering of previous

testimony would have no effect due to the fact that her testimony

at preliminary hearing would not operate to dismiss the case by

the State and as such the man would have been bound over for

trial anyway and it’s improper under the law to comment.

MR. TRUSTER: That was a non‑published opinion

by the Court of Criminal Appeals and each case standing on its

own bottom has no bearing on this particular case.

THE COURT: Okay, we are ready. If it is

error it is incurable error when I have already permitted him

to intensely interrogate the witness concerning her failure to

notify law enforcement that she had an alibi defense for the

defendant.

MR. WALLACE: Very well.

(Thereafter the following proceedings were had in open

court.)

MR. TRUSTER: Does the Court have the Court

file?

THE COURT: Remind me, Miss Killins, not to

go back into the jury deliberation room at the conclusion of

the trial.  If nobody else has been excused from the regular

jury then you will be excused and I would caution you that I

think it would be better if you do not express your opinion as

to what your verdict would have been had you been permitted to

deliberate until such time as a verdict has been returned,

however you are not bound by that admonition.

MR. TRUSTER: Your Honor, for the purpose of the

record I would ask leave of the Court at this time to reopen

the State’s case in rebuttal due to an oversight on my part ‑‑

I apologize to the Court, counsel and the jury ‑‑ for the

purposes of marking for identification and introduction into

evidence the preliminary information filed in this case charging

the defendant James Scott Bauhaus with the crime of murder of

Jefferson Dee Hunt, filed on January 3rd, 1973. We would offer

that as State’s Exhibit Number 22 and request that it be admitted

into evidence.

THE COURT: It may be admitted and exception

allowed.

MR. WALLACE: To which we would object, Your

Honor, as I have previously and we would request an exception.

MR. TRUSTER: The State would then re‑rest

rebuttal testimony, Your Honor. .

MR. WALLACE: The defense would offer no

further testimony.

(State’s Exhibit Number 22 is marked for identification

by the reporter. The Court’s instructions were read aloud to

the jury and thereafter the proceedings were as follows.)

THE COURT: I will briefly state that the

argument will proceed during the lunch hour and that counsel

for the State having the burden of proof will probably elect to

,divide his argument into two phases, the opening portion of the

State’s closing argument and then after the defendant has made

his argument then the State will reserve for rebuttal argument.

Now, counsel will be given latitude in making their closing

argument. They must stick to the issues in the cause and they

may make reasonable inferences from any of the testimony admitted.

They should not go completely outside the record. Now, these

gentlemen are advocates in the cause, they may hear the testimony

different from the way the jury heard it.  It would not be

deliberate on their part but as I have stated they are honorable

gentlemen but being advocates sometimes they are concerned with

maybe other matters or notes in their files or various other

things that they have made during the trial and they may be

mistaken in evaluating the testimony. If that happens I want

the jurors to rely upon what you have heard, if it becomes a

conflict on what counsel has told you the evidence was and what

you understood it from the witness stand.  The jury is the final

arbiter of that. Remember this, the closing argument, although

an important part of the trial is not evidence in the case.  It

is their opinion of what they have proved by the evidence that

they have submitted to you and bear it in that line and at this

time the Court will recognize the Honorable Jerry Truster who

,will make the opening portion of the State’s closing argument.

Mr. Truster.

MR. TRUSTER: . Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies

land gentlemen of the jury, this case started a couple of days

ago on voir dire examination. We told you at that time that you

would be, if selected as jurors to try the case, asked to

determine basically which side is telling it like it is. And

ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that is the only issue here

today, the only single one. Before I begin I would like to take

this opportunity to thank you for your kind attention that you

have displayed throughout the course of the trial, paying atten‑

tion to each witness and all of the evidence presented.

Now, let’s get down to facts, ladies and gentlemen. The

State told you on opening statement that we would anticipate

calling three specific witnesses. Doctor Robert Fogel to

testify as to the cause of death. In a homicide murder case

you need the pathologist to examine the deceased to determine

what injuries were sustained and what specifically is the cause

of death. Doctor Fogel is an experienced man, an expert, as you

are instructed to consider his testimony in light of the expert

witness testimony, not to exclude your own evaluation of it.

“Doctor Fogel, please, sir, tell this Court and jury the cause

of the death of Jefferson Dee Hunt?” “I examined the body

externally first”  – you will recall his testimony.” then

examined the body after the clothing was removed, determined that

the cause of death was from a single gunshot wound.” And he

described on his person the angle of the gunshot wound, the

trajectory and tract of the bullet, the bullet that he removed,

indeed a State’s exhibit offered into evidence and admitted that

you all had the opportunity to see.

“Doctor, what did you do, please, sir, did you recover a

slug?” “I did.” “What did you do with it?” “I marked it with

an F on the bottom.” And you all had the opportunity to see

that. “What did you then do with the slug?” “I turned it to

Detective D. A. Roberts.” Thank you a lot..

All right, you recall later on down the case Detective

Roberts testified that he got the slug, State’s exhibit, and

turned it into the property room. Why this? Because we are

bringing to you, ladies and gentlemen, all of the evidence that

was collected at the scene of the crime under the direction of

Detective Jess McCullough, to reconstruct, if you will, the events

and the scene as it appeared on October 17th, 1972, in the home

of Mr. and Mrs. Jefferson Dee Hunt. “Thank you, Doctor, no

further questions.” We will call Dorothy Hunt to the stand.

“You are the wife of the decedent in this case?” “I am.”

“Please, ma’am, tell this court and jury what happened on

October.l7th, 1972, anything unusual.” Of course something

unusual, the life of her husband was taken. And by whom? By

the defendant, James Scott Bauhaus, that’s by whom. And why?

“Tell us exactly what happened?” “We drove home, arrived

there between 2:30, quarter of 3:00 in the afternoon of that

October 17, 1972.” “And upon arriving what did you do?” “Got

out of the car” ‑‑ went by car to their residence. “What did

you do?” “Proceeded to the front door.” “Who opened the door?”

:'”My husband went in.” “What did you find when you opened the

door?” “Saw a young man standing there in the’ dining room area

of the hallway.” “Anything unusual about that?” “Well, yeah,

we left that morning and locked the house.  “Did you secure

everything?” “Sure did.” “Well, ma’am, what happened next?”

“My husband went over and we saw that he had a gun.” “A gun,

what kind of a gun did he have?” “He had State’s Exhibit

Number One, this gun.” This gun that was owned by the decedent

Jefferson Dee Hunt and placed there in his night stand loaded.

“He had this gun, ma’am, are you sure about that?” “Yes, I am.”

“Well, what happened next?” “My husband asked for the gun.”

And ladies and gentlemen, he got more than what he asked for,

he got the projectile from the gun, the projectile that was

fired by this man seated before you, the defendant, James Scott

Bauhaus.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, at this time I would

request Mr. Truster put the gun on the counter.

MR. TRUSTER: Ladies and gentlemen, this is

admitted as a State’s exhibit, you will have a chance to hold

it, feel it, look at its operation. Its operation was not

testified to but it is proper, you can cock it, you can fire

it, you can determine, ladies and gentlemen, that a gun ‑‑

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, Mr. Truster has testi‑

fied here on closing, the operation of that gun is not in evidence

I would ask the Court to admonish Mr. Truster to not explain

the operation.

THE COURT: I will overrule. Reasonable

inferences may be drawn from evidence submitted.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

MR. TRUSTER: Ladies and gentlemen, you may

look at the gun. You will note that guns are fired in a manner

by squeezing the trigger, cocking the gun and squeezing the

trigger. And who cocked the gun on October 17th, who fired

that weapon? From the testimony of Mrs. Hunt the only person

that was present in the house, the scene of the crime other than

the deceased Jefferson Dee Hunt, right there, that is who.

“And how was he holding it?” “He had the gun raised.”

“At your husband, please, ma’am?” “Yes.”

And you had the opportunity to observe the defendant stand

up, his height. You will note from Doctor Fogel’s testimony

that the decedent, Mr. Hunt, was five foot eight, a man of lower

stature than what the defendant is and he had the gun raised

thus accounting perhaps for the angle trajectory of the bullet.

We don’t know, it’s not at issue in this case, it doesn’t make

a whole heck of a lot of difference in which manner the gun

caused the death, if the trajectory is upward, downward, side‑

ways or whatever, in this case. In some cases it does because

it goes to perhaps the identity of an accused. Not so here.

Why not? Because Mrs. Hunt was there and her identity and

identification of this man makes that not an issue here of the

trajectory and the angle of the bullet.

All right, slug from the body introduced by Doctor Fogel’s

testimony and Detective D. A. Roberts. You have that slug coming

from the gun, inferentially. We did not have a ballistics

expert brought before you to say that they test fired that

weapon, inference. And you are instructed you may use your

common sense, ladies and gentlemen, in deciding a case.

“How many shots fired?” “One shot fired.” “What happened

after the shot was fired, Mrs. Hunt?” “My husband dropped to

the floor, that man dropped the gun to the floor and fled the

house.” Single shot, slug still in the body. Doctor Fogel,

inferentially, State’s Exhibit slug coming from State’s Exhibit

Number One, gun.

Now, we introduced to you certain photographs taken of the

crime scene again as an aid to you, ladies and gentlemen of

the jury, to reconstruct the scene. You will note and you have

already had the opportunity to examine them, the condition of

the house out there on the 17th of October of ’72, ransacked

as Mrs. Dorothy Hunt testified. Indeed, I believe she said that

there was a pillow case on the floor with some jewelry in it.

And why that? Why that for this reason, that this man James

Scott Bauhaus, based upon the evidence before the Court and

jury was in the process of burglarizing ‑‑ inferentially you

certainly could argue that ‑‑ the home of Mr. and Mrs. Hunt.

Ransacked condition. “Locked the place when you left?” “Yes,

I did.” “And, ma’am, you certainly didn’t give anybody permis‑

sion to come in and throw your doors open and take everything,

did you?” “No.” Okay, that is why, a burglary was in progress,

a burglary ‑‑

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I object to that,

there has been no showing in the evidence of any such —

THE COURT: I will overrule.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: Allowed.

MR. TRUSTER: Now, ladies and gentlemen, you are

directed to consider all of the witnesses, all of the testimony,

so the State brought to you the next witness, Mrs. Jack Baker.

Now, Mrs. Baker testified that she was in the neighborhood

of the school approximately two blocks away from the house and

home of Jefferson Dee Hunt. She was there between 2:30 and

3:00 o’clock in the afternoon. “Why were you there, Mrs. Baker?”

“I was there to pick up my son from school.” “What school?”

“Hoover Elementary.” “And I will ask you, Mrs. Baker, did you

notice anything unusual at that time?” “Sure did.” “What

did you see?” “Saw a man running, not jogging because I had

seen others in that area jogging but this man was running hard.”

Running hard. “Now, what exactly was he doing, please, ma’am?”

“‘He was running hard down the street, his cheeks were flushed

and he appeared to be looking at his watch.” “His watch, did you

see a watch?” “No, I sure didn’t but he was looking at his arm,

”raising his arm up.” Raising his arm up. What is the signifi‑

cance of that? I submit to you inferentially based upon the

evidence before this Court that you will note the rear door,

the storm door of that residence, the glass was broken, blood

on the back fence, drops of blood immediately on the sidewalk

located just over the fence followed two blocks down to the

location where Mrs. Jack Baker observed who? This man, this

man that was not wearing glasses on October 17th, 1972, this

man that had black curly hair, this man that had a cleft in his

chin, according to the testimony, this man James Scott Bauhaus,

the defendant. “Thank you, ma’am, no further questions.”

That basically was her testimony.

Now, the State called the remaining officers to the stand.

Bill Yarbrough took the photographs, was present when the screw‑

driver was recovered. Now,  I  anticipate counsel’s argument

already from his questions on cross‑examination concerning the

screwdriver. The screwdriver fit the pry marks on the door.

Now, it has directly no connection with the firing of the gun

but it certainly goes to motive, ladies and gentlemen, that’s

why the burglary in progress was there, that’s why James Scott

Bauhaus was there, to burglarize the home of Mr. and Mrs. Hunt.

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Denied.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: Allowed.

MR. TRUSTER: You will notice the evidence, the

photographs indicating the officer picked up the screwdriver

and compared the width of the screwdriver, the white paint on

the end, and common sense wise he concluded that they matched.

That’s a good conclusion that you may also draw but it’s not

an issue in this case, it’s merely a means to determine what

makes such an individual as James Scott Bauhaus tick. Why,

why did he fire that gun into the body of Jefferson Dee Hunt,

what motive? Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is not the State of

Oklahoma’s burden to prove motive to you. I can’t call in the

heads of those persons and determine motive. You can’t, but you

can look at all of the facts and circumstances coupled with your

common sense and the instructions on the law that the Court

gives to you and determine why, why an event like this happened,

what makes it happen in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in Chicago, in New

York, anyplace, what makes persons act as they do.

Opportunity, sure did, he was there. Means, the means is

State’s Exhibit Number One. You have probably heard on the TV

State’s Columbo, some of those detective shows or Perry Mason or

all of that stuff we told you that wasn’t in evidence in this

case, about the code word mom. M‑o‑m means to commit the crime,

opportunity to commit the crime and motive. Do they all fit

here? Coincidentally they do, coincidentally they do. You say,

now, Mr. State of Oklahoma, how come it is there is a pre‑

meditated design in this case and  I  say to you for this reason,

under the law and the instructions you are given. I direct your

attention to that instruction which reads that that premeditated

design can be formed in a moment of time, a moment of time, a

single moment of time. Read instruction number three but the

thing I want to hit on just in case you do not do that back

there, “Important questions to be considered are: Do the facts

and circumstances in the case at the time of the killing and

before and immediately after that time having connection with

or related to it, furnish satisfactory evidence beyond a reason‑

able doubt of the deliberate mind on the part of the accused

to effect the death of the one killed at the time the act is

done which results in the killing.”

First page of that instruction, it’s a long one, please

read it and read all of the instructions coupled together with

all of the evidence that you have heard. Going on to the second

page. “Premeditated design includes malice aforethought and

accordingly the jury must be satisfied from the evidence beyond

a reasonable doubt that the killing was the consummation of a

previously formed design to take the life of the person killed,

and that the design to take the life, or kill, as herein re‑

quired was formed deliberately, with a deliberate mind. There

is, however, no definite space of time necessary to intervene

between the forming of this premeditated design to kill and

the actual killing, and a single moment of time may be sufficient

All that is required is that the mind be cool and deliberate in

forming its purpose and in forming a design to kill, and you are

instructed that the design to kill is inferred from the fact

of f of the killing, unless the facts and circumstances in the case

raise a reasonable doubt”, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, take a look at what happened. They returned home.

They returned home during; I think inferentially you can argue,

during the course of a burglary in progress. And you know when

you drive a car it makes a noise, doesn’t it. Common sense,

you are allowed to do that. A car drives up to your residence

and how many of you go up to the window to look and see if some‑

body is coming because you hear a car in the driveway. They had

a driveway out there on October 17th, 1972, when Mr. and Mrs.

Hurt were returning home. And who was inside the house when

they were returning? Mr. Bauhaus was inside. What was he

doing? Ransacking things, ransacking the rooms, burglarizing

the place. Where did Mr. Hunt keep his gun? He kept it in

the nigh[ stand by the bed. Mr. Bauhaus, where was he located

when they entered the place? Why he was standing in the dining

room with the gun. Now, ladies and gentlemen, there was no

testimony chat Mr. and Mrs. Hunt ran to the front door and opened

it because indeed everything appeared to be normal to the

contrary , so they had to have a length of time to reach from

the driveway to the door and go inside and who was still there?

Mr. Bauhaus with the gun. Now, I Submit to you that length of

time indicates a cool deliberate mind, doesn’t it. Why did he

not then simply run out the rear door at chat time instead of

lurking behind That wall in the dining mom with the gun

raised. Premeditation is here, ladies and gentlemen. Not only

is chat evidence of premeditation but indeed the operation of

the gun itself. A single meant of time is all chat is necessary

to form premeditated design. The single moment of time that

squeezes the trigger that takes the life of a human being,

Jefferson Des Hunt It’s there, the premeditation is there.

Now, ladies end gentlemen, chat is the State’s case in a

nutshell, you have heard the evidence. on the other side of the

coin you hear of the alibi defense offered by the defendant.

And you will note in our opening statement we told you what we

anticipated was going to happen. I didn’t know that Mrs. Baker

could positively identify the defendant, I didn’t try the

preliminary hearing, she never testified at the preliminary

hearing.  But I told you like it was and counsel made his open‑

ing statement and they called their alibi witness, Mrs. Judy

Cole, and she testifies that, oh, no. James Scott Bauhaus was

with me the entire day from 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon or

between 2:15 and 2:30, as the testimony related, during Another

World. I don’t have anything against the soap opera, Another

World, but based on the evidence I have something against the

testimony of Judy Cole and that is why, ladies and gentlemen,

I want you to remember her testimony clearly. “Mrs. Cole, please,

ma’am, tell this Court and jury how it is that you knew that

James Scott Bauhaus was charged with the crime of murder of

Jefferson Dee Hunt?” “I read it in the newspaper.” “Which

one, please, ma’am?” “Tribune, I am pretty sure it was the

Tribune.” “In the evening paper?”  “Yes, we got both of them.”

Now, please, ma’am, an, when did you read that article?” “I  read

it in November or December.”  “What year?” “1972.”  “If it

had been in the month of November would it have been the first

part or the last part?” “Last part. “If it had been in the

month of December, first part or last part?” “First part.”

“So, Then either the last part of November or the first part of

December you read that article in the Tulsa Tribune, ma’am”?

“Yes.” “And what did you do after you read the article?” “I

remembered that, by golly, on October 17th the defendant was

with me because Pam Garrison’s father’s birthday was the next

day and we went shopping.” ‘what did you do with that informa‑

tion knowing that we had an innocent man charged with the crime

of the murder of Jefferson Hunt?” “well, I told his father.”

That is fine. “Did you tell anybody else?” “Yeah, and his

uncle and my husband and we all went over to his uncle’s house.”

“The same evening you read it in the newspaper, in the Tribune?”

“Yes. “Sometime in November or December, right?” “Right.”

Ladies and gentlemen, that is why the State of Oklahoma

did call a rebuttal witness, Mrs. Lucille Towry, the keeper

of all of the news clips and articles of the Tulsa world and

Tribune. “Look through those, please, ma’am, tell this Court

and jury it there are any articles in November, October,

December, 1972, stating that James Scott Bauhaus was charged

with the crime of murder of Jefferson Dee Hunt?” “I find

none.”

Well, now, wait a minute here, Mrs. Judy Cole said, oh,

yeah, I was sure of it because that’s what drew my attention to

it and that was it.   And she is an alibi witness and after all

if Mr. Bauhaus was there then you have got to believe her story,

right? Wrong. Wrong because Of the testimony of Mrs. Towry and

because, ladies and gentlemen, and I almost neglected to

introduce that, I do apologize again, State’s Exhibit Number 22,

the preliminary information filed in this case charging this

defendant with murder, noting the file stamp of District Court

dated January 3rd, 1973.  Mr James Scott Bauhaus wasn’t even

charged with the crime of murder of Mr. Hunt until 1973, January.

Consider all of the testimony consider all of the inferences

you can draw therefrom.

I will have probably quite a bit to say in the second half

of the State’s argument after counsel has his argument and I

do anticipate that Mr. Wallace will castigate and attack the

police department through the efforts of Detective McCullough

for the failure to get blood samples, the failure to get finger‑

prints, the failure to do a lot of things but please do not

be misled. Listen to his argument because I am sure it will be

a good one but concentrate on the facts, ladies and gentlemen,

and those facts indicate but one thing and that is that James

Scott Bauhaus is guilty of the crime of the murder of Jefferson

Dee Hunt. Thank you.

THE COURT: At this time no Court will

recognize the Honorable Jim Wallace who will make the closing

argument for the defendant.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, you, Your Honor. Ladies and;

gentleman, Mr. Truster. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to

thank all of you for the devoted attention you have given this

case. I know we have run a little bit late. I know Mr. Boyd,

you will probably be able to make your appointment tomorrow.

Based on the length of the examination this has been a short

case. When I voir dired you and you were initially sworn as

jurors you promised me you would keep an open mind, give James

Bauhaus the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt and 1

am sure you meant to do that and at this time you still exercise

that right and you will hold by it throughout your deliberations.

I want to request that you review the evidence that has been

elicited in this courtroom, determine in your own mind which is

the believable evidence and which is not and make your verdict

based upon that.   Remember if you would, please, the defendant

is protected by a shield which is not a mere preponderance and

is referred to as a presumption in the law. This is more than

just a mere legal technicality, this is a principle in our law

that is founded and so deeply rooted in our system of justice

it is referred to as a shield. This man is protected until the

State has met its burden and pierced this shield. I submit to

you the State has failed to do so. I will explain to you why

in just a few minutes. Remember if you would this presumption

needs to be overcome by legally competent evidence. Remember

the State throughout the trial has the burden to prove beyond

a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Jams Bauhaus

as guilty of murder. Keep that in mind if you would, please,

before your deliberation and throughout your deliberation.

Each of you promised me on voir dire that you would make your

own assessment of the facts, establish your own independent

judgement and exercise the same. At this time, especially before

your deliberations I would charge each of you to use your own

judgment, not be influenced by the other jurors’ inferences

from what they drew from the testimony. Each of you has your

own memory, rely upon that and draw your own conclusions and

stand firm upon them if you would, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, the system of justice in the United

States has been such as to establish what many defense attorneys

refer to as a tree of reasonable doubt in the middle at the

road to McAlester.  Now, the tree of reasonable doubt is that

tree which stands between this defendant presently and your

verdict of guilty or not guilty. In order for the State to

effectively prove and remove every single branch and leaf on

this tree of reasonable doubt they must overcome this presumption

of innocence with competent believable evidence. I submit to you

that when you reconsider all of the evidence here  today you will I

believe along with myself and Mr. Bauhaus the State has totally

failed to meet this burden and you will return a just verdict of

not guilty.

Now, let’s review same of this case. Initially the State

called Doctor Fogel. Doctor Fogel is an extremely well qualified

doctor, we take no issue with the fact that he is able to

determine that a man has died. Fine.

Next, Mrs. Hunt. Mrs. Hunt comes up to you and testifies

that at 2:45 P.M. she and her husband returned home from Bordens

after having lunch.  Excellent.  She said that was normal routine

to have lunch there. Fine, a lot of people eat at Bordens. When

was this October 17th, 1972? Twenty‑one months ago. Twenty‑one

months. She stated when they got home her husband went in the

house first, went into the dining room, From her diagram you

can readily see there is a small wall in the way.  “Mrs. Hunt,

was the man you saw readily visible as soon as you entered the

door?” “No, my husband apparently saw him first, moved toward

him.” Mr. Truster has stated he asked him politely to give him

the gun. I submit to you, as Mrs. Hunt’s testimony has shown,

Mr. Hunt moved toward this man to take the gun. Fine.

“Mrs. Hurt, could you see if your husband ever touched

man?” One time yes, one time no, the third time she can’t

be sure. Twenty‑one months later, it’s a long time, she can’t

be sure about a whole lot of things. “Did you make any effort

to stop your husband, ma’am?” “No.” “Why not?” “This all

happened so quickly, it all happened so quickly.  “Why didn’t

you make any effort to stop him?” That we don’t know. Mrs.

Hunt, what did this man have on? “Dark pants and a light blue

shirt, I believe.” “Do you remember if he had a jacket on?”

“No.” That is interesting. “Do you remember what type of

shirt?” “Mrs. Hunt, may I refresh your memory from

preliminary hearing. Did you not testify that it was a slipover

shirt?” Preliminary hearing one month ago. “Oh, yeah. I believe

that is correct, yes, I think that is right.” Twenty‑one months

ago is a long time. Mrs. Hunt doesn’t seem to remember

specific color or pattern of these slacks but that’s understand

‑able she didn’t remember the color of the slacks the defendant

had on when the defendant stood right in front of her in the

courtroom for 10 seconds.

“Mrs. Hunt, how much time did you have to observe this

man in the whole transaction?” “Approximately five seconds,

maybe.” Five seconds.  Mrs. Hunt, do you remember any dis-

tinguishing marks?” “No.” “Scars?” “No.” “Tattoos?”  “No.”

Five seconds at the most from when they entered the house

until this man left the back door and this lady is testifying

that she was under no pressure and she could observe this man

and can 21 months later make a positive identification. I

submit to you think on your past experience, judge that testi‑

mony with great scrutiny. She doesn’t remember if it was a long

sleeve or short sleeve shirt. She doesn’t remember how much

this man weighed, doesn’t remember specifically how tall he was,

doesn’t remember the name of the first officer that arrived upon

the scene. Why not? She stated she was in shock. Naturally

she was in shock. We take no issue with that, anyone upon seeing

a loved one of theirs shot would naturally be in shock. Take

that into consideration when you judge her testimony. anyone

seeing a loved one in this position Would naturally be shocked.

“Mrs. Hunt, where was your vision, please, ma’am?” am?” “I

noticed the gun.” “What else?” “I was watching my husband, I

watched my husband fall when he was shot.” Naturally, we take

no issue with that. Mrs. Hurt, with all of her expertise and

memory.  Twenty‑one months later as an example of her memory

she doesn’t even remember the name of her grandson’s school

that he attended when he has lived at her house throughout his

life. She doesn’t remember if the door was locked. She testi‑

fied, sure, I secured all of the doors. Refreshing your memory

at the preliminary hearing, did you testify so and so, did you

lock the doors; she said, “I believe so.” I asked the question

of her, “Did you check the doors yourself?” “Well, no.” Today

one month later, “The doors were locked, I am sure, I was the

last one to leave.” Questions? “Mrs. Hunt, could you see what

the storm door was broken out with?” “Well, no.” “Why not?”

“Well, my attention was directed to my husband.” Naturally her

husband was the basis of her attention, anyone on that situation

would be exactly the same. “Mrs. Hunt, where was your attention,

on your husband? You mean you weren’t watching this man as he

went out the back door?”  No, I was worried about my husband.”

Fine.

Five seconds, this whole transaction took five seconds, two

of which we might by inference exclude altogether, the two it

took him to run to the back door, the one that Mrs. Hunt was

behind her husband as they came in, she did not readily observe

this man. That may narrow it down to one or two seconds. ‘What

state were you in at this time, ma’am, after seeing your husband

shot?”   “shock.” Naturally shock. Who, upon seeing a loved one

shot would not be shocked, who would not attempt to help their

loved one, we take no issue with that.  However, the basis of

her identification. Shock. She was in shock. She doesn’t

remember observing any blood on the storm door. She doesn’t

remember observing any blood on her husband. If I might, you

will, as Mr. Truster has alluded, have a chance to observe these

State’s exhibits in the jury room. I ask you to look closely

Specifically at the pictures purporting to represent the

deceased and observe for yourself if you cannot readily see

blood on the carpet and on the arm. Her attention drawn to

him, she doesn’t even remember that her husband was bleeding

but 21 months later she can make a positive identification.

Mrs. Hunt didn’t even wait for the ambulance. Why not? “Well,

the police told me to leave.”   “Why did the police tell you to

leave, Mrs. Hunt?” That we don’t know. We can only speculate

by inference maybe she was still in a state of shock and became

hysterical and was asked to leave at that time.  Mrs. Hunt

didn’t even wait for the ambulance. Mrs. Hunt doesn’t seem to

remember any type shoes the man had on yet she can testify that

he stepped over her husband. She doesn’t remember any belt,

she doesn’t remember specific facial characteristics, she doesn’t

remember the color of his eyes. She is split on her testimony

as to how far this man was away from her or her husband. It

varies anywhere from a step to four or five steps. All of these

things are to be considered. I submit to you I can run down this

list, run down approximately 10 things immediately off the top

of my head that she doesn’t even remember. Take that into

effect when you judge her credibility as an eyewitness 21 months

later. Again, think that all of this occurred in just five

seconds, at the most five seconds. See your husband shot,

immediately you are in shock. Where would your attention be,

on the man as he ran cut the door? She stated, no, she was

worried about her husband which is understandable. She went

to get him a wet towel which is also understandable. I believe

you will see in the State’s Exhibits pictures that wet towel right

ii next to the blood on her husband which by her testimony she says

that she didn’t remember observing. That is interesting.

Mrs. Hunt does remember one thing, this man had no gloves‑

on. That is an interesting point that I will come back to in

minute, In fact I will cover it now. No gloves on. Mrs. Hunt

said this man had no gloves on. Yes, that is correct and the

man dropped the gun immediately after firing the shot. Yes.

that is also correct “Mrs. Hunt, did you ever touch the gun

before the police arrived?’ “No, sir, I went to get a wet

towel, called an operator and left.” No gloves. Never touched

this gun. The police arrived upon the scene. The police

department in all their wisdom cannot retrieve fingerprints.

The State throughout their ease alluded to latent prints. Where

are the prints off this gun. Mrs. Hunt in her testimony on

question from Mr. Truster didn’t even seem to remember they had

a gas stove in the house that could have killed their parrots.

I suggest to you if you will examine State’s Exhibit Number

Three, those of you that have a gas stove will readily observe

there is a gas stove right here in Mrs. Hunt’s own kitchen.

Doesn’t remember the name of her own grandson’s school; doesn’t

remember a gas stove in her kitchen; doesn’t remember blood on

her husband but 21 months later this lady can come in here and

say “yes, I am positive this man sitting here is the man who

my husband.” Judge if you will the previous 10 to 12

things Mrs. Hunt doesn’t remember. What is memory? A statement

by a witness, “that’s the man.” And you think about it, it is

really nothing more than an opinion. How do you form these

opinions? By relating characteristics of people’s personality

facial characteristics, body language, if you will, the way

they walk, the way they talk, you put all of these together

and you direct them toward an individual.

“What characteristics do you remember about this individual,

Mrs. Hunt?” “He didn’t have any gloves on.” Interesting point.

Then we come to Mrs. Baker. Mrs. Baker by her own testi‑

mony is peacefully reading e mystery book ‑‑ very convenient ‑‑

waiting for her son to get out of school on the afternoon in

question. Granted that is fine; a lot of us pick up our

children from school. “Mrs. Baker, what did you observe?”

“Well, I was seated in the driver’s side of my, car parked against

the curb and observed a young man running rapidly by; moved as

a basketball player”, inferring chat naturally he was somewhat

athletically inclined and was probably moving at a good pace.

“Where did you first see this man, Mrs. Baker?” “Well, the

first time I saw ham was out the rear passenger window.” Now,

how many of us have sat in our cars at the curb end attempted

to see the face of someone walking immediately next to the

car? I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, all of you have

experienced this, especially at the angle but here this lady

And where has she been for 21 months, why had she not

called the police, why had she not made an identification prior

to our day here in court? Why had she not told Mr. Truster

that she can identify this man? Probably because Mrs. Baker

subconsciously has a desire to become a part of all of this

mystery that she reads. Sitting in her car on the driver’s

side of the car looking out the rear passenger side window as

a man runs toward the back of her car all she can see is the

side of his face but 21 months later she can come in here and

say, “I am positive this is the man, he has the cleft in his chin.”

I submit to all of you by Mrs. Baker’s testimony that we all

have clefts in our chin at this point. It is a normal physical

characteristic of  anatomy for the chin to be indented

under the lip. I submit if any of you will look at each other

you will understand what I am driving at.

“Mrs. Baker, what was this man doing?” “Well, he was run‑

ning, he was running fast, he wasn’t just jogging, he was moving

at a good clip.”   “How long did you have to observe this man?”

“Oh, perhaps a second, maybe two. As he went on down the

street behind me I looked out the rear window and saw him. I

could see his cheeks were flushed.”   That is an interesting

proposition. Once again think of when you have sat in the

driver’s side behind the wheel of your own car and attempted to

see anyone besides a child who would be leas than five feet

tall run by the car or even walk up to the car, think about how

many times you have had to lean over to talk to someone standing

two or three feet from the car to see their face, then think

about Mrs. Baker’s positive 21 month later identification of a man

she stated, “Well, I could see the side of his face and his

cheeks were flushed.” That is an interesting proposition. “What

was this man doing again?”  “He was running, running fast.”

“What else did he appear to be doing?” “Well, he was looking

at his left wrist” “Do you know why he was looking at his left

wrist? “No, I assume he was looking at a wristwatch. “  “Mrs.

Baker, did you see a wristwatch?”   “No, I never noticed one.”

“Mrs. Baker, did you see any blood on this man’s arm?” “No,

I didn’t notice that either” “Why not? if a man is running

past a car in this direction at full speed, the lady is seated

approximately where Mr. McCullough is, looking in the opposite

direction up at an angle.  I submit the roof of the car would

hit him about shoulder high. Even yet what was he doing? Look‑

ing at his left arm. His left arm away from her, totally a

different side of her. Twenty‑one months later, “I am positive

that is the man, he has a cleft in his chin.”  Very good, Mrs.

Baker. Hardly. Hardly. “Mrs. Baker, what did this man have

on?” “Gray shirt and tan pants and white tennis shoes.” Gray

shirt, tan pants and white tennis shoes.

Let’s go back to Mrs. Hunt’s testimony. “Mrs. Hunt, what

did this man have on?” “Dark pants and a dark blue shirt.”

There, ladies and gentlemen, is the typical eyewitness identifi‑

cation. You can put four people an a corner, expose them to

any type transaction and you will get four different versions.

Think about chat as far as your credibility. The State’s own

witnesses contradict each other directly as to what he had on.

That is an interesting proposition. All of this goes to

identification. Mrs Hunt, five whole seconds. Disregarding

the two he was running to the back door and the one when he

was not readily visible, if you will accept my interpretation,

a matter of a second.

Mrs. Baker, oh, maybe a second, the side of his face, not

directly across, not in front of her car but going out the rear

passenger window and down the street away from her. Twenty‑one

months after positive identification. “Well, Mrs. Baker, why

didn’t you tell anyone about this?” “Well, I was all shook up.”

“Did you tell your son.” “No, I was all shook up.” “Mrs.

Baker, why were you all shook up at 3:00 o’clock in the after‑

noon for seeing a man running?” “well, there was this murder

at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon.” Mrs. Baker was not aware

that there had been anything transpire anywhere in that neigh‑

borhood, she was not aware of any murder. All of this, I think,

gets back to Mrs, Baker’s subconscious desire to become part

of these mystery books which she states she reads a number and

a number and a number of mystery books. She probably likes

that type. Fine. Well, where has she been all of these 21

months? We don’t know. Why didn’t she come in and make a

positive identification? That we don’t know. Based upon her

own second observation I got a real good idea why she didn’t

come in and make a positive identification. How would you feel

should you see someone from the side running full speed looking

the other direction for approximately one to two seconds at

the most, how would you feel to come in 21 months later to come

up on the stand and say I am positive that that is the man,

realizing the man faces life imprisonment on your testimony. No

doubt she hesitated coming in, she probably wasn’t sure, that is

why she hasn’t been here before for the previous 21 months. One

fleeting moment is exactly what Mrs. Baker had out the rear

passenger window of her car. But still positive identification.

It’s only been over a year and a half. Mrs. Baker, why didn’t

you testify at preliminary hearing? Well, we don’t know that

either. Apparently she hadn’t told the State at this time whether

she had this evidence or not.   In fact Mr. Truster has even told

you he didn’t know when she was going to testify whether she

could positively identify the defendant and I submit to you the

reason that he didn’t knew that is because she didn’t know that

until she walked in the courtroom, saw Mr. Bauhaus seated here,

the only defendant in the whole courtroom, the finger being

pointed at him at that time; it’s really easy to say, well, I

guess that’s the man.

Then we move on to Officer Yarbrough.  Don’t misinterpret

my comments about police work in this case. The police in

Tulsa are an excellent force, they do their work. In this case

Officer Yarbrough was there and took the pictures. Well, he

took all of these photographs, one showing you the gas stove

Mrs. Hunt didn’t remember was in her kitchen, another showing

the blood on her husband and all over the rug Mrs. Hunt didn’t

remember.   Twenty‑one months later she definitely remembers that

this is the man.

“Officer Yarbrough, did you have occasion to take a picture

of this trail of blood?”  Well, we don’t have a picture of that,

we don’t know why. Took pictures of the screwdriver. Of course

the screwdriver is an interesting subject. Officer Yarbrough

has testified any screwdriver of the same width at the end would

fit that pry mark if in fact it was a pry mark. In fact, Mrs.

Hunt’s testimony, were the doers locked, to Mr. Truster, yes.

At the preliminary hearing she didn’t know, she didn’t check.

Back to the trial, yes.. We don’t really knew whether she did or

not. Officer Yarbrough, identification bureau, by his own

common sense testified that this was the screwdriver he believed

to have made the pry, mark. Assuming it was a pry mark, he

already testified any screwdriver that size would fit. “Officer

Yarbrough, you are a policeman with the identification bureau?”

“Yes, that is correct” Another example of how the police

handle their evidence. Where are the fingerprints from this

screwdriver? If defendant Bauhaus made same where are they? They

are probably under that man’s hand. Where are they off the

gun? Well, we don’t know. Defense counsel will not make con‑

clusions to the fact the police didn’t do their work. I submit

to you the police did their work, found not the defendant’s

fingerprints on that gun as Officer McCullough has testified.‑

Officer McCullough, a very competent officer, seen in the

courthouse many times, he has testified many times, extremely

competent officer. He arrived and secured the scene. Very good.

“Officer, did you obtain any latent prints or prints?”

“Well, we obtained some but they weren’t quite identifiable.”

“Did you obtain any fingerprints whatsoever that pointed the

Police in the direction of this defendant?” “Well, no.” That

is interesting. Referring you again to State’s Exhibit Eight,

the house was being ransacked. Notice little things in this

picture, ladies and gentlemen, the chair had been pulled away.

How do all of you pull chairs? Fingerprints. “Did the man have

my gloves on, Mrs. Hunt?” “No.” Telephone moved off the

night stand onto the bed. Fingerprints? All of this torn apart.

Not one single fingerprint of this defendant “Did you get

any prints off the storm door?” “Well, no.” It’s only a

glass storm door and we all know that fingerprints don’t show

too well on glass storm doors. Any of you who have glass storm

doors probably have a bottle of Windex under the sink for clean‑

ing the same because fingerprints from all over town show up on

them. “Did you retrieve any fingerprints off the storm door?”

“No, we couldn’t get any.” “Did you get a blood sample?”

“No.” But there was enough blood to leave a trail of blood .

two blocks. “Did you get any blood samples off this fence?”

“No.” There are enough palm prints on this fence I submit to

you to get an identification of the man. Did this lead to

Mr. Bauhaus? No. What we are right back to is Mrs. Hunt.

“Did this man have any gloves on?” Well, she was right, she

was right for once, that is a bloody palm, that is not a bloody

glove print. I submit to you that that is probably the only

time she was correct.

“Did you take any blood samples and submit it to the Okla‑

homa Bureau if Investigation or any other type facility to

determine whose blood it was?” “We don’t know.” I submit to

you had they, which I believe they did, and the results had

pointed to the defendant Bauhaus surely you would see them here

today. Are they here? No. Are the fingerprints here from the

gun that Mrs. Hunt said this man shot with no gloves on,

immediately dropped and she never touched, are the fingerprints

here? No. We just don’t understand how there aren’t any

fingerprints on there. Are there fingerprints on the screw‑

driver? No, but we are sure this is the one that pried open

the door, the burglary. Are there fingerprints anywhere in

this house? No.  “Mrs. Hunt, did you observe anything strange

in your house?” “Well, there was a pillow case full of goods,

costume jewelry, et cetera.” Where are they? No fingerprints.

Again extremely interesting. Reasonable doubt? I believe so.

Out of this whole house, gun, screwdriver, storm door, fence,

all of these obvious possibilities for identification not a

single shred of physical evidence against Mr. Bauhaus. Reason‑

able doubt? I believe so. The trail of blood, we don’t have a

picture of it so we will assume from ft. McCullough’s testimony

that possibly that trail of blood did even exist. “Officer,

do you know of your own personal knowledge why these pictures

weren’t taken?” “Well, it was sunny, they might not have shown

up on film.” That sounds good.  “How far apart were they?”

“Oh, anywhere from six to 18 inches in sporadic design.” I

submit to all of you that anyone running obviously covers more

territory than somebody walking. Average stride of a six foot

man is at least three feet walking: running it would have to

be at least five feet.

Let’s go back and look at these pictures of the storm door

and the back porch. Observe carefully when you deliberate,

ladies and gentlemen, the mass accumulation of blood, if you

would.  Officer McCullough testified he couldn’t even see it

on this picture which is understandable, I can’t either. But

there was enough blood running from this man to leave a trail

every six inches when he was running full speed probably four,

five or six feet a stride. Hardly. Palm prints? No. Blood

samples? No. Fingerprints? No. Those are all minor things

in a homicide investigation. “Officer, do you know who the

first officer on the scene was?” “No, I don’t.” In fact we

still don’t know why Mrs. Hunt was asked to leave the scene.

If a loved one of yours had been shot and the ambulance and

police were on the way would you attempt to take the pulse,

would you wait for the ambulance or would you readily leave

under the instruction of the police? I submit to you if one

of your loved ones in your family had been shot and you believed

seriously injured you would remain, wait on the ambulance unless

you were so shocked and so hysterical that the police would have

to ask you to leave. That, I believe, is the case we have here.

Then the State rests. All of their evidence, all of their

evidence to destroy the presumption of innocence, all of the

burden that is necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt.   It seem to me Mrs. Hunt’s testimony is

scattered extremely well with reasonable doubt. Doesn’t remem‑

ber long sleeve or short sleeve shirt, doesn’t remember the name

of her grandson’s school and he has been going there and living

with them 14 years. Doesn’t remember the color of his eyes,

doesn’t remember how tall he was, doesn’t remember how much he

weighed; does remember he doesn’t have any gloves on, doesn’t

remember they had a gas stove in the kitchen of that house.

That is an interesting point. How many of you don’t know what

kind of stove you have in your house or a year from new would

not remember.  Thank about it. Reasonable doubt? I believe so.

And Mr. Bauhaus, on behalf of Mr. Bauhaus I offered Mrs.

Cole’s testimony. “Mrs. Cole, do you remember the day of

October 17th, 1972?” “Yes.” “why do you remember that day?”

“Well, because it was my friend’s father’s birthday the next

day and we had gone shopping.” Understandable. Many of us

shop together, many of us shop special occasions and reflect

thereon. “Do you remember what time you got home, ma’am?”

“Oh, a few minutes after 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.” “How

do you fix that time, ma’am?” Well, like many Americans she.

who is not working at the time, watches TV during the day. Any

of us who have watched TV during the day realize that there are

soap operas on in the afternoon and many people become quite,

if you will, addicted to them. Mrs. Cole testified that she

happened to be addicted, if you will, to Another World.  “What

time does Another World come on, Mrs. Cole?” “2:00 o’clock.”

“What time does it go off?” “2:30.” Very good. “Did you

observe Jim Bauhaus at your house that day?” “Yes, he came

over.” “Do you remember what time it was?”  “Well, I didn’t

have a watch on but Another World was still on.” Well, if

Another World runs from 2:00 till 2:30, Mr. Bauhaus arrived

before the show was even over. Get back to Mrs. Hunt. “Mrs.

Hunt, what time did you get home?” “2:45 P.M.” It’s interest‑

ing, very interesting. “Mrs. Cole, did you ever observe Jim

Bauhaus leave your house that day?” “No, he remained throughout

the afternoon.” “Did you notice any cuts or bruises or

abrasions on his arms?” “No.”  “How long did he stay there?”

“Till about 10:00 or 11:00 that evening.” Nine hours. Nine

hours as opposed to three seconds by Mrs. Hunt, one second by

Mrs. Baker. But you can’t believe Judy Cole, she is a relative.

Relatives family, the like are to be considered in your

determining of her credibility as a witness but I will submit

to each and every one of you can any of you sit here and tell

me that you would sit still and not come down and testify at

me trial for one of your family when you knew they were some

place else. I doubt it Mrs. Cole came in and offered the

facts. Mrs. Cole on cross‑examination by Mr. Truster a very

competent trial attorney, “Do you remember what you talked about:

“We talked about Jesus.” Always on the mind of killers. Hardly.

“Mrs. Cole, have you ever seen the defendant in tennis shoes?”

“Never have.” “How long have you known him?” “A number of

years.” “Never seen him in tennis shoes?’ “No.”

“Mrs. Baker, what did this man have on?” “Tan pants,

tennis shoes, light blue shirt like Sears, no emblem on it.”

“Mrs. Hunt, what did this man have on?” “Dark pants and a light

shirt, I believe.” “Did this man have a long sleeve or short

sleeve shirt?” “I don’t remember.” “Jacket?” “I don’t

remember.” “My particular type shirt?” “No.” “Didn’t you

at the preliminary hearing a month ago testify he had a slipover

type shirt?” Yes, sometimes your memory fades in one month

We are here 21 months later to listen to Mrs. Hunt and Mrs.

Baker, three seconds between the two of them. Twenty‑one months

later they positively identify the man they have seen once in

their life for a fleeting second.

“Mrs. Cole, how long did the defendant stay at your house

that date?” “Nine hours.” “Did you observe any cuts on him?”

“No.” We all know cuts don’t heal in 10 minutes. We know if

this man had cuts on his arm they did not observe them in a

warm sunny day.  Long sleeve or short sleeve shirt, nobody quite

remembers.

Cross‑examlnation. “Mrs. Cole, do you remember what day

you read it in the newspaper?” “Well, I believe it was the

last part of November or December.” “1972?” “I believe so.”

Well, Mrs. Cole, like the rest of us, didn’t have anybody in her

family charged with murder the day she read it in the paper,

the charge had already been founded. Her response was to Mr.

Bauhaus, father, a natural response. I submit to anyone of

you, think back if you will what you were doing October 17th,

18th, October 19th. Do you remember reading it in the paper,

do you remember it a week later when you had read it or two

months later, three months latex when this case was finally

directed toward Mr. Bauhaus, two months later. By the State’s

own evidence January 3rd is when they finally filed their

charge. Three months expired between these three seconds between

Mrs. Hunt and Mrs. Baker and the filing of this charge. Three

months in itself is a long time. But that is a year and a half

less than where we are here today. But they can make positive

identifications based on three seconds. Reasonable doubt?

I believe so.

Now, Mrs. Cole Me come down here end testified she

doesn’t remember the exact day she read it in the paper. They

got the paper at home, she read it, she went with her husband

over to Mr . Bauhaus’ father’s.  Seems competent.  “Mrs. Cole,

do you remember the exact day you read it in the paper?” “Well,

I don’t. I don’t really remember.” “Do you remember what month

it was?” “No, I don’t really remember.” I submit to you,

ladies and gentleman, if you will look back on your own past

experiences of remembering November first, 1977, January 3rd,

1973, any of you remember where you were that day, what you

read in the paper that day? No. I submit to you Mrs. Cole’s

failure to remember the exact day she read it in the paper is

probably the most believable situation we have in this whole

trial. Mrs. Cole didn’t come down here to perjure herself. She

came down here to tell the facts as she said. Mr. Truster:

“Do you expect these people to turn This man loose on this

evidence?” Mrs. Cole: “I don’t know, I guess so.” She

doesn’t know what the outcome of this trial is going to be, she

is here to tell you what she saw and why she saw it. Once again

do you remember the specific date of the newspaper? No. Once

again, I believe that’s the most believable thing that came from

that witness stand during this whole trial. One lady has the

truth and honesty in herself to get up here and testify, rather

than a perfect defense.  If she were making up a perfect defense

surely she would have checked those things out.  “Do you remember

what day it was?”  “No, I really can’t remember the specific

day.” That, I believe, is the most truthful statement, most

believable statement in this entire trial.

Thinking back again if you will, ladies and gentlemen, on

the statement of that is the man. As I stated to you I believe

that all of us realize this is merely an opinion, an opinion

based upon characteristics of people, we observe their personal‑

ity, their hairstyle, their build, color of their eyes, physical

characteristics of their face, clothes they were wearing. Do

we have those here? What do we have here? Positive identifi‑

cation based upon observing a man for a fleeting second. He

had no gloves on. One thing Mrs. Hunt remembers is that he

didn’t have any gloves on. But at the same time fingerprints?

Well, no, we couldn’t identify them. Reasonable doubt? I

believe so. The witness, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you

is unable to describe any other physical characteristics,

clothing, surrounding circumstances, personality traits trial

you identify with someone when you remember them, I submit to

you their identification is certainly worthless. Think back

on how you identify your friends, physical characteristics.

Think back of all of the times you have seen somebody you thought

was a friend of yours and it turned out you were mistaken.

People you have known you have seen other people that looked

just like them and you approached them. Perhaps you have just

been introduced to someone and you run down the street at them,

honk at them and it turned out to be somebody else. Three

seconds. But 21 months later on no other physical characteristic

personality or body traits, that’s the man, I am positive only

21 months later. Disregarding the 15 other aspects of the

case, “I can’t remember; I don’t remember anything else about

lit; I am positive that’s the man.” Ladies and gentlemen, I will

submit to you that the emotional stress and strain and the shock

Mrs. Hunt was under during these number of seconds goes as much

as anything to her ability to not remember the man. Think about

it.  How many times have you observed an automobile accident,

somebody else, a matter of a couple of seconds, no emotional

stress or strain. Two or three weeks later do you remember

exactly what happened? No, not especially. But this was a

different instance, Mrs. Hunt had seen her husband shot and fell

“Where was your attention directed, Mrs, Hunt?” “To the gun,

I saw the gun, it was my husband’s.” Very good. “What else?”

“Only my husband.” “Did you notice any blood around your hus‑

band, Mrs. Hunt?” “No.” “But your attention was directed

toward him?” “Yes.” Very interesting. Parade the defendant

up in front of the witness stand. “Mrs. Hunt, look at this man.

Is he the man?” “Yes, he is.” Ten seconds, no pressure, no

shock, no emotional strain. “Stand up, Mr. Bauhaus, thank

you. Sit down, Mr. Bauhaus, thank you. Mrs. Hunt, what color

pants does Mr. Bauhaus have on?” “I don’t remember.” “Do you

know what color tie he has on?” “It’s dark, I believe.” “Do

you know what color shirt he has on?” “Well, it’s dark or

navy blue, I believe.” Right, one out of three. Reasonable

doubt? Fifteen seconds after he was standing in front of her

under no pressure whatever she can’t tell you what color pants

he had on but 21 months later after two seconds of seeing her

husband shot and fall on the floor she can come in here and tell

you, yes, I am sure this is the man, I am positive, I just know.

Reasonable doubt? I believe so.

Ladies and gentlemen, the crucial issue of this case as Mr.

Truster and I expressed to you in opening statement is identifi‑

cation. Carefully weigh all of the circumstances of the situ‑

ation involved in the making of this identification, Mrs. Hunt’s

couple of seconds, Mrs. Baker’s one second at her own admitted

angle through the back passenger window of a man running by her

in the opposite direction looking at his left wrist. Think about

that. Think about your own experiences in the car or behind the

driver’s wheel of a car attempting to discuss something, attempt‑

ing to see whose face it was walking by on the sidewalk you are

parked next to and then think about Mrs. Baker. Well, I was

sitting there reading a mystery, I was so shook up, I seen a

man running, that it just stuck in my mind. “Why were you shook

up?” “Well, I found out later there was a murder that day.”

“You found out later?” “Well, I found out later but I was shook

up at the time.”  Sitting in her car reading a book, looks up,

not seeing the man run towards her. First sight: “Where did

you first see this man, ma’am?” “Well, it was out the rear

passenger window.” Very good.  “Running by at full speed?”

“Yes.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I can’t change the fact that Jim

Bauhaus was in Judy Cole’s house October 17th, 1972, at 2:15

P. M. I can’t change the fact that Judy Cole came down here and

offered her testimony to help her husband’s cousin. If Mayor

LaFortune had been there we would have called him and he would

have offered the exact same testimony. It’s not at my disposal

who we get to call as witnesses. I apologize to you.

MR. TRUSTER: Now, Your Honor, I want to object

to that, that is improper argument to the jury. They have the

same subpoena power as the State of Oklahoma.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection

to that.

MR. WALLACE: I am stating if Mayor LaFortune

had been there I would have called him; I am not stating he is

not under my power of subpoena at this time.

THE COURT:All right.

MR. WALLACE: Ladies and gentlemen, once again

beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty.

The punishment for murder carries life imprisonment in the

State penitentiary. As I alluded to earlier between the County

jail here in Tulsa county and this courtroom today and

McAlester there is a tree planted there by the American system

of justice. it’s not a defense tactic, it’s not a legal loop‑

hole, it’s a tree which stands there to protect yourself as well

as myself. That tree is the tree of reasonable doubt. The

State must remove every leaf and branch of that tree before you

can send Mr. Bauhaus to McAlester. Beyond a reasonable doubt

to a moral certainty.

Now, I won’t have a chance to talk to you again after Mr.

Truster does, Mr. Truster gets the final shot. All I ask is

that when Mr. Truster poses questions to you you reflect on the

evidence and you supply the answers that I believe you will

supply. You will realize the gaping holes in their testimony,

the fact that it is positive eyewitness identification. Three

seconds, count to yourself three seconds. Think without looking

at anybody else that has been on this jury panel for a day and

a half with these individual jurors, I submit to you one year

from now if they walked up to you on the street would you be

able to positively say that is the man I sat four seats down

from during this jury trial. A day and a half as opposed to

two or three seconds being under the shock and influence of

seeing her husband shot by an intruder in their home. Now, I

must sit here and listen to Mr. Truster without getting a chance

to reply. I just ask you to supply the answers I believe you

will draw from the evidence. I am going to end as I began, once

again asking you to understand this presumption of innocence.

It’s a maxim so well founded in our American system of justice,

it’s firmly planted, I don’t see any chance of it ever being

removed.  This presumption is a shield which protects .this man

against the State of Oklahoma until they have met their burden

which I submit to you they have not by a long shot of proving

this man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty.

To a moral certainty.

Ladies and gentlemen, Judge Graham, Mr. Truster and myself

20 or 25 years from now may forget about this case but Mr. .

Bauhaus’ life, I do mean his life is right now in your hands:

That’s a solemn obligation and I charge each of you not to take

it lightly. A man by your observation, 20, 21 years old and

you have the power right now in your hands. Twenty‑five years

from now if those interested are still around will you be able

,to think about this trial, will you remember this trial? Can

you look back with a clear conscience and say to yourself beyond

a moral certainty I was sure on the basis of those three seconds

between those two witnesses 21 months later that this was the

man? Can you have a clear conscience and think that? That

decision will be up to you. I think afterwards you will be able

to say to yourself with complete peace of mind that you had an

opportunity to determine the course of a man’s life, to deter‑

mine what happened to him for the rest of his life, a young man,

a healthy young man, not someone we can just write off and not

worry about. You also have the power to destroy him but I

submit to you that instead, based upon the believable evidence

in this case you have no other choice upon consideration of all

of this evidence but to go in there, realize the reasonable

doubt that exists in this case, realize that to a moral certainty

you are not sure and as the instructions of the Court have told

you and as Mr. Truster and myself have told you throughout from

the beginning of this trial, throughout this trial that should a

reasonable doubt remain in your mind that you must resolve that

in favor of the defendant. I had faith in each and every one

of you when you told me at the beginning of this trial you would

give me a fair and impartial trial and sit and listen to the

evidence which I appreciate you have done. You have exhibited

extreme attentiveness, you have been an excellent group of .

jurors.  I submit to you that when you do that that you will

have no other choice but to come back with a verdict of not

guilty. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

THE COURT: Mr. Truster, you may make the

closing argument for the State.

MR. TRUSTER: Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies

and gentlemen of the jury, you have just heard the defense

counsel’s argument to you. I will try to be as brief as I can

but I fully intend to cover everything that he brought up either

inference or otherwise so bear with me if you will, please.

If you have to stand up and stretch, do so, that is not going

to offend me in the least.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, you have heard the standard

stock argument given by defense counsel in a criminal case.

That is in sum and substance to attack the State’s case but for

heaven’s sake let’s don’t talk about the witnesses that they

present. Attack by inference, innuendo. Jess McCullough is

a terrible detective of the Tulsa police department, he shouldn’t

have even worked this case.

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I object to that.

I stated Officer McCullough is an extremely competent officer

which I believe.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. TRUSTER: That is what he said. What he

inferred may be something else, Your Honor.  Now, ladies and

gentlemen, let’s take a look at some of the statements. You

know, there is one statement ‑‑ I was taking some notes here,

I hope I don’t bore you ‑‑ said Jesus is always on the mind of

killers. That’s a very profound statement, I concur, perhaps

it should be. Jesus is always on the minds of killers. You

see, ladies and gentlemen, the State through the process of

the Legislature proceeds under criminal statutes, laws passed

by humans whom you elect to represent you, laws to be inter‑

preted. A murder statute that is not unlike the Ten Commandment

of thou shalt not kill. Is Jesus always on the mind of

killers? Maybe, maybe so. We are here under the State statute

charging murder.  I submit to you the State of Oklahoma has

met its burden of proof beyond any doubt, not just a reasonable

doubt, any doubt. Why? Because I told you at the outset, and

I don’t want to repeat too much, which side is telling it like

it is and which isn’t. And, ladies and gentlemen, if we are to

believe counsel’s argument that the most believable statement

in the entire whole trial was that of Mrs. Cole’s then I submit

to you we are in trouble. We are in trouble based upon her

statements to this Court and to this jury. And why? Because

she stated ‑‑ maybe I was asleep through the evidence, I don’t

know, you heard it, thank God for that ‑‑ but she stated:

“Ma’am, positively you are sure about the date that you read

that article charging this defendant with the crime of the murder

of Jefferson Dee Hunt?”  “I am.”  “You are positive of that?”

“Yes.”

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your Honor

and stand on the record. I don’t believe that was her testimony.

THE COURT: Well, the jury will remember and I

have cautioned them in that regard about the review of the

evidence.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

THE COURT: Allowed.

MR. TRUSTER: You will remember the testimony,

ladies and gentlemen, and that’s why we brought rebuttal.

Oh, yes, I bet she would have liked to have known there was a

person by the name of Lucille Towry that is a librarian that

keeps news clips and they are categorized according to names

of persons in the news, I bet she would have liked to have

known that before she took that witness stand because, ladies

and gentlemen, I submit to you that that little piece of

evidence coupled with this information filed in the case January

the 3rd, the very first time that this defendant was charged

with the crime of murder, blows her story out the window. It’s

just that simple.

Recall one other incident in light of her testimony, some‑

thing about counsel inquired of her on direct examination was he

wearing white tennis shoes and she said no. And I stood up on

cross and said, well, ma’am, you can’t remember what he had on,

can you; and she said that she could not remember. So, I don’t

know. If we take her testimony I submit we are in trouble but

your obligation, that’s your prerogative, if you want to

believe the defendant James Scott Bauhaus’ witness Judy Cole

then believe it. It’s uncorroborated under the evidence of the

State’s case.

Judy Cole. Other persons were present that day, weren’t

they, from her own testimony. Where are they? Where are they?

James Scott Bauhaus was in the house and residence of Mrs:

Dorothy Hunt and damn you, Mrs. Hunt, you left your beloved

husband lying on the ground according to counsel’s argument.

I don’t. mean it but that’s what he would have you believe.

Just left him laying there.

And you will recall Doctor Fogel’s testimony.  “Do you have

an opinion, Doctor, about the time, whether that would be a

quick death or what?” “Yes, I would say it was pretty quick,

probably instantaneous.”

MR. WALLACE: I object to that, I don’t believe

that was the testimony.

MR. TRUSTER: That is what I remember, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: The jury will remember.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

MR. TRUSTER: Mrs. Baker. Ladies and gentlemen,

why wasn’t Mrs. Baker called for preliminary hearing a month

ago. I will show you why not, because this is the preliminary

information filed by the State, a competent exhibit that you

will have a chance to look at when you go back to deliberate

listing all of those names of those witnesses according to the

file, our work product, that we intend to call as witnesses.

Mrs. Jack Baker does not appear thereon. I didn’t try the

preliminary hearing. Mr. Wallace tried the preliminary on

behalf of the defendant. He had a transcript; I didn’t have a

transcript.

MR. WALLACE: I object to that.

MR. TRUSTER: Mrs. Dorothy Hunt didn’t have

any opportunity to see the transcript.

THE COURT: I will overrule.

MR. WALLACE:Exception.

THE COURT: Allowed.

MR. TRUSTER: She never had any opportunity

to refresh her memory of what she testified to after preliminary

hearing. What did he ask? Did Mr. Bauhaus have a light

colored shirt or dark colored shirt, light or dark pants, please,

ma’am? And you will recall her testimony.  They make a big

deal out of that. That is called impeachment using this tran‑

script that we talked about. Impeachment of a witness’ credi‑

bility. Ladies and gentlemen, this lady testified that her

attention was drawn to the face of the defendant, James Scott

Bauhaus, from a distance of approximately three feet when he

stepped over the body of her husband and that is when she looked

at him in the face. Now, he says three seconds, four seconds.

I don’t know how much time but I submit to you I was asleep,

by golly maybe I was, but I sure didn’t hear the testimony of

the entire incident taking three or four seconds. That ain’t it,

that is not it. But he would have you to believe that. Because

why? The State of Oklahoma did not solve this case based upon

scientific evidence. They solved this case based upon eye‑

witness evidence. Mrs. Jack Baker was not endorsed for the

preliminary hearing. I will tell you why she did not testify.

Because she was not subpoenaed.

MR. WALLACE: I would object to that, Your

Honor. He has already testified he didn’t try the preliminary.

He probably doesn’t know why she wasn’t called.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. TRUSTER: It’s on the face of State’s

Exhibit Number 22. We issue subpoenaes based on the face of

the information. I read this file and glanced at it in the

process of filing a District Court information and Mrs. Jack Baker

was endorsed as a witness at that time. That is why that I

did not know whether she could or she couldn’t.  I thought that

she could but she testified to the way that she remembered it

list the time that it happened. And why the delay? Ladies and

gentlemen of the jury, there are certain things that the law

in criminal cases prevent the State of Oklahoma from telling

you unless counsel for the defense opens it up or by case law

we are just prevented from telling you anything about it. Now,

there are some questions that each of you have in your mind, I

bet you you do, because there are some things that I would love

to tell you, I would like to have all of you raise your hand and

we go down and have a press conference right here and I would

lay it out to you but that is not evidence. The evidence is

coming from that witness stand and that is what you are to base

your opinion on. Now, the principal thing that I can’t tell you

under the law and the evidence ‑‑

MR. WALLACE: I object to this, Your Honor,

anything that he can’t tell them.

MR. TRUSTER: I am not going into the specifics.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: Allowed.

MR. TRUSTER: You will have a question probably

in your minds as to what directed the police to the defendant

other than the observations of Mrs. Hunt and Mrs. Jack Baker

on the day October 17th, 1972.  In other words, why did the

State of Oklahoma wait until January the 3rd, 1973, to file

its case. That’s something that is not competent to testify

to because of the situation we have. But it’s not material.

It’s not material.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, we have met our burden of proof,

we submit to you, from all of the testimony. It’s just that

simple as we talked about earlier but there are a few things

that I would like to additionally make and then I will sit down.

Healthy young man, the power to destroy him. Well, James

Scott Bauhaus had the power to destroy Jefferson Dee Hunt on

October 17th, 1972, and that power was in his hands, State’s

Exhibit Number One. Mr. Hunt was healthy, he was alive. He

returned to a place where he had a right to be, his own home.

This man took his life and fled. Power to destroy, that is a

two‑way street, ladies and gentlemen. We are not asking for the

death penalty, it’s not part of the instructions as we told you

it wasn’t. We are simply asking that you decide and base your

verdict on the evidence.

Personality of Mr. Bauhaus? Why he didn’t remain around long

enough to converse with Mrs. Hunt. I don’t know what kind of

a personality he has; Mrs. Hunt certainly doesn’t but she

knows what face faced her out there when Mr. Bauhaus pulled the

trigger on her husband. Certainly does. Now, Mrs. Hunt is not

a policewoman. She has not been trained in the identification

factors, clothing, hair, et cetera, et cetera, but she did say

this, that face, that is the man.  And counsel would have you

to believe that identification portion of her testimony came

from the very instance that I paraded his client over here.

Not so. You will recall I was back in the back of the court‑

room and said, “Mrs. Hunt, do you see that person present in

court today that shot your husband on October 17th, 1972?” “I

do.” “Where is he seated and what is he wearing?” “That is

the defendant, James Scott Bauhaus.” And then cross‑examination

and then redirect examination and I asked Mr. Bauhaus to come

forward and stand the approximate distance from Mrs. Hunt as he

did stand on October the 17th, 1972, based upon the evidence

in the case. “Mrs. Hunt, do you have any doubt” ‑‑ now I am

not talking about reasonable doubt ‑‑ “any doubt whatsoever

in your mind that this is hot the same man that pulled the

trigger and killed your husband?” “No, sir, that is him.”

Thank you.

Now, that is what I remember the evidence to be. Twenty

or 25 years from now you will forget this trial. No, you won’t.

submit you won’t.  I have never forgotten any trial that I

have ever participated in. It’s not a pleasant experience to

sit in judgment of a fellow citizen charged with a serious

offense. This happens to be the very most serious criminal

offense in the State, this State or any other State and that

is the unlawful killing of another human being. It’s not a

I pleasant experience and I thought we talked about that on voir

dire examination. Are you in such a frame of mind that it

would create any undue stress and strain on you to sit in this

case, a murder case and you all indicated that you could.. It’s

a solemn experience. Do you think Dorothy Hunt will ever, ever,

ever forget this trial? Will she ever, ever, ever forget the

face of dames Scott Bauhaus as it appeared to her on October the

17th, 1972? I submit to you she will not. She will not. And

neither will you, neither will I.

Okay, bloody palm print. Where are the fingerprints? Where

are the blood samples? Well, again an area that I anticipated

but am prevented from fully jumping into until the door is

opened by defense counsel. He inquires where are they. I will

tell you where they are. The blood sample went to the F.B.I.

laboratory in Washington, D.C., a report came back from the

F. B. I. laboratory indicating that‑the amount of blood was

insufficient in quantity ‑‑

MR. WALLACE: We object to‑this, Your Honor,

it’s not in evidence, there is no way we have of knowing that

is true or not.

THE COURT: I will overrule it as an

invitation, invited argument.

MR. WALLACE: Exception, please.

THE COURT: Allowed.

MR. TRUSTER: It came back insufficient quantity,

again negating blood left at the scene that may have matched the

accused’s blood, James Scott Bauhaus. Where are fingerprints?

Ladies and gentlemen, fingerprints and fingerprint scientific

evidence is a fascinating area.. It, however, is not a panacea

for the solving of all crimes. A fingerprint can be left on a

surface. A lot depends on whether or not a latent fingerprint

is left. Now, latent fingerprints, everybody has ridges and

whorls and swirls and all of the little things that a competent

identification expert can testify to, that this ending ridge line

on the hand of a particular person corresponds to that as of the

latent print. In other words, if I go like this I leave what

is known as a latent print.

MR. WALLACE:Your Honor, I would have to

object to this seminar on fingerprint evidence.

THE COURT:overruled.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

MR. TRUSTER: I leave a latent print. You have

left latent prints on glass, on a door, sure. You will recall.

Don’t be misled by that. I don’t know how Mr. Bauhaus left,

whether he touched the top of the door or the bottom of the

door. Of course if he touched the bottom of the door with his

hands, bare hands, we don’t know that.  The glass is on the

thing as evidenced by the pictures so that would be a super

difficult job to get any latent prints off of that. Don’t be

misled by that.  I don’t know how he touched the door, beats

me. When you leave a latent print you dust for it, use finger‑

print powder that raises the ridge lines, you take tape and lift

it off and you preserve it.  So and so officer lifted latent

prints, blah‑blah‑blah, fine. Not all latent prints are capable

of being lifted.  If I go fast they are smeared and none what‑

ever. The surface depends a lot on whether a fingerprint is

left. The surface of the screwdriver, I submit to you, is such

an item so if you leave a print on that it may be a partial

print, so don’t be misled by leaving prints on a screwdriver.

Once a latent print is lifted then it becomes important that

you find a person who has known prints. How do you get known

prints? You fingerprint the individual, you roll their little

fingers on the card and you take the card and you have an

officer come in here and draw a nice diagram for the Court and

jury and you say, Officer, did you have an occasion to take

this accused’s fingerprints and roll them? I did. And this

is State’s Exhibit such and such. Now, did you also have

occasion to compare the rolled prints of this live human being

before the Court with the latent prints?

MR. WALLACE: Your Honor, I object to this

line of argument since there are no fingerprints even offered

here by any officer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. TRUSTER: That’s right, and I am telling

you why. Then, ladies and gentlemen, he will have what is

known as points of comparison. The F.B.I. recommends, I think,

12 points of comparison, et cetera. If you have less than that

you may not have competent evidence and it may be thrown out

and not admissible by the Court and as a matter of law. If you

have more that is fine too. But don’t be misled. We didn’t have

fingerprints, I told you on voir dire we did not have finger‑

prints, so it’s the same old defense counsel argument, where is

this, where is that. The hell with the police work, it’s bad

by inference but let’s don’t comment on it, that is a little too

obvious. Don’t be misled by the words fingerprints.

Ladies and gentlemen, I get a little worked up, I guess, and

maybe that’s wrong but I like to tell it like it is and I hope

that you can decipher from all of the things that counsel states,

that you hear and see the truth before you. But it’s very

important in a criminal trial that no person is vindictive.

The vindictiveness is left out in the street and thus delays

are encountered throughout the criminal process of bringing an

accused before the Court. And it’s an interesting phenomenon

of psychology, if you will, that immediately upon hearing or

reading of a homicide, murder, whatever the case may be, how

enraged that the general public is, want to find the killer, want

to find the perpetrator and then all of a sudden after time

passes, a case may be solved that day, it may not be solved that

day; when it is solved is not before this Court at this time and

is not a material issue but upon solving the case then the case

goes through our entire criminal system and ultimately reaches

12 persons to decide. And it’s probably a good thing that there

are delays involved because the State would not want a vindictive

jury to simply disregard everything they hear and have their

minds made up beforehand and that is the purpose of voir dire

examination  So why 21 months? Not material but 21 months did

elapse, according to Mr. Wallace and I don’t have any quarrel

with that, in this particular case of bringing James Bauhaus

before this Court and jury for the murder of Mr. Hunt. it

happened. But if you want to give sympathy, sentiment and

prejudice to this defendant you should not because you are

instructed not to.  You must not let sympathy, sentiment and

prejudice influence your verdict one way or the other.

So, I don’t buy the argument, oh, you are going to destroy

the life of this man seated before you. Mr. Bauhaus destroyed

the life of Jefferson Dee Hunt by the pull of a trigger during

the commission of a burglary as the evidence reflects. Now,

ladies and gentlemen, you are not the ones that have destroyed

Mr. Bauhaus’ life.. He took it upon himself to do that the

instant that he killed Jefferson Dee..Hunt.

Something else very quickly. Parrots, what is the signi‑

ficance of the dead parrots? Parrots make noise. Parrots make

noise. I submit to you, common sense wise inferentially if you

have got a yakkety bunch of parrots in a house that you are

burglarizing you better put them to sleep some way.

MR. WALLACE: I object to that, Your Honor,

there is nothing in evidence to represent that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. TRUSTER: The parrots are right here in

the State’s Exhibits, Judge.

THE COURT: I will overrule and permit him

to comment.

MR. WALLACE: Exception.

MR. TRUSTER: Mrs. Hunt didn’t remember what

kind of stove it was? That is not what I heard.  I heard was

the gas turned on out there, did you smell gas? No. I don’t

know how the parrots died but they were alive when she left.

And they made noise, pets get attached to their owners and not

to strangers and birds have a habit of making a yakkety noise

and this is a residential area and if yakkety noises are going

on in the house maybe that would draw the attention of the neigh‑

bors; who knows, if neighbors are drawn to the attention maybe

somebody might want to get involved and pick up the telephone

and call the police department to investigate, to get involved.

But, of course, don’t let them be an eyewitness because they

will come down here to court and they will say to hell with the

eyewitness, we are going to believe you, Mr. Defendant, that they

were mistaken, indeed on purpose. By inference that smacks

of the argument that counsel offers.

This is a close case? I don’t think so, I don’t think so.

That’s for you to decide. I don’t believe it’s close at all.

Mrs. Hunt has positively identified the defendant. Oh, yes,

she didn’t know what clothing.  Clothing has a way of being

changed. You know, you are supposed to change underwear, et

cetera, when you get up in the morning.  Clothing can be changed.

Maybe Mr. Bauhaus had a different color shirt on and he stripped

down to his undershirt, I don’t know. But he was there, he

as there in the house, Mrs. Hunt looked at his face. Mrs. Baker

looked at his face and counsel would have you to believe that

she is manufacturing this out of some kind of illusion that she

likes to come down and testify and maybe she would get involved

in a mystery. There is no mystery here, ladies and gentlemen.

She is simply telling what she observed, telling it like it is.

Counsel says on voir dire to eliminate all types of argument

involving law and order, don’t listen to what Mr. Truster is

going to tell you in closing argument. You can do that, ma’am,

sir, you promise the defense you can do that. I have his notes

right here that I took down. I am not offering a law and order

argument to you but I submit to you it certainly would be

proper in this case. I am simply presenting to you ladies

and gentlemen the way it happened out there.

Why did Mrs. Hunt not see him exit there? Look at the

diagram. He says she didn’t even pay attention when he left

out the back door. No, by golly, because she couldn’t see it.

You have to go down the hall and then out and that is from the

diagram. For heaven’s sake, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes

I wish we didn’t have any closing argument at all, then, by

golly, we would just listen to the testimony as it comes forward

from the witness stand and you would be excused and attorneys

wouldn’t have to go through this. But, by golly, that’s up to

you to decide now. I could comment on a lot of things that

counsel brought up and I hope I have covered it all but I

know you are squirming in your chairs and you have listened to

closing argument for almost two hours. Doggone it, it’s just

this simple, if you want to cut Mr. Bauhaus loose and turn him

on the street then do so but in order to do that you have to

take the uncorroborated testimony of Mrs. Cole and disregard

the eyewitness testimony of the State’s case and that’s it. No,

we didn’t solve this case by scientific evidence. We have to

utilize the eyewitness testimony and solve it by the person who

as there.  I sure would like to have Mr. Hunt here, maybe we

would be here on a different charge, but Mr. Hunt is deceased

and not before you. So, we offer the only other two eyes that

were there, in addition to the two eyes that were uncovered by

glasses on the day in question.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have not bored you to death.

I wish you godspeed in your deliberations.  I leave the case

in your very capable hands. I pray that you do justice in this

case, return a verdict of guilty, find the defendant, James

Scott Bauhaus guilty of the crime of the murder of Mrs. Hunt’s

husband, Jefferson Dee Hunt, on October 17th, 1972. Thank you,

ladies and gentlemen.

                        *    *    *    *

Editor’s note:   This jury found James guilty, and he was sentenced to life in prison.  He is currently incarcerated at Lawton Correctional Facility, and his family is still working to free this wrongly convicted man.  Be on guard, so that someone you love will not be wrongly convicted as this example shows.