64
On August 29, 2008, Judge David Rains issued his sentencing order in the case of the
State of Alabama
v.
Barbara Ann Roberts.
Judge Rains had enjoyed a long and distinguished career, and had a well-deserved reputation as a fair, thoughtful judge who gave very careful consideration of the cases he ruled on. He put a great deal of thought into the long, detailed sentencing orders he wrote in cases such as Barbara’s, where he detailed all the facts and circumstances and explained his decision in each of them. In cases such as Barbara’s, when a human life was literally in his hands, he took special care to arrive at a ruling that was just and appropriate for the situation as he saw it. The only sentencing choices available to him because of her capital murder conviction were either death by lethal injection or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Judge Rains put much time and careful thought into the lengthy sentencing order he issued, summarizing the case.
On November 2, 2006, the grand jury of Cherokee County, Alabama, had indicted the defendant, Barbara Ann Roberts, for three counts of capital murder.
Count One charged Barbara with intentionally causing the death of Darlene Roberts during the commission of robbery, first degree.
Count Two charged her with intentionally causing the death of Darlene Roberts during the commission of kidnapping, first degree, by abducting or attempting to abduct Darlene Roberts with intent to inflict injury upon her or to violate or abuse her sexually.
Count Three charged Barbara with intentionally causing the death of Darlene Roberts during the commission of kidnapping, first degree, by abducting or attempting to abduct Darlene Roberts with intent to terrorize her or Vernon Roberts.
At the same time, the grand jury, which returned this three-count indictment against Barbara, also returned a three-count indictment charging the same offenses against Robert John Schiess III.
On June 27, 2008, at Barbara’s trial, the Cherokee County jury found her guilty of the lesser included charge of noncapital murder and guilty of the lesser included charge of robbery, first degree, under Count One. The jury also found Barbara guilty of capital murder under Count Two, and guilty of capital murder under Count Three. In accordance with the verdict of the jury, Barbara was adjudged guilty of capital murder under Count Two and Count Three of the indictment. She was also adjudged guilty of noncapital murder and robbery, first degree, under Count One.
After the jury’s verdicts of guilty, they were convened again to recommend a sentence to be imposed for the capital murder conviction under Count Two and Count Three of the indictment. On a vote of eleven to one, the jury recommended that Barbara should be sentenced to death for the capital murder of Darlene Roberts.
Judge Rains ordered and received a presentence investigation report, and on August 29, 2008, he conducted an additional sentence hearing. At that sentencing hearing, the district attorney urged the court to uphold the jury’s recommendation and sentence Barbara to death.
Rodney Stallings argued that the court should sentence Barbara to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Judge Rains asked Barbara whether she had anything to say and whether there was any reason why sentencing should not be pronounced. As she had done during her arrest, questioning, and trial, Barbara had nothing to say in her own defense.
Judge Rains prepared a summary of the facts surrounding the murder of Darlene Roberts and Barbara’s participation in it, in accordance with ALA. CODE 13A-5-47, which required that the court enter its written findings of the crime.
Darlene Roberts was murdered on April 6, 2006, found lying facedown in a farm pond near her home on County Road 941 in Cherokee County, Alabama. She had been shot twice in the back and once in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun. All three of these killing shots were fired at very close range.
The investigators found a total of eight spent 12-gauge shells at the scene. Based on the victim’s wounds, it was apparent that in addition to the three shots fired at close range, the victim was struck by pellets fired from a farther distance, allegedly while she ran from her assailants.
A broken pair of eyeglasses was found at the scene by the investigators as they searched for evidence. These eyeglasses were traced to Barbara Ann Roberts. Further investigation led to the arrest of Barbara and Schiess on April 19, 2006.
Barbara was interviewed by investigators three times after she was arrested. The first two interviews took place at the Rockdale County Sheriff’s Office in Conyers, Georgia.
Notwithstanding the availability of video- and audio-recording equipment in the interviewing room, the first interview (April 19, 2006) was conducted without the equipment being activated, and the interviewing officer did not make written notes as he conducted the interview. His subsequent written account of what Barbara said was the only record of her first statement.
The second interview (April 20, 2006) took place in the same interview room, but with the audio and video equipment activated. The video and recording of this interview was transcribed so that a written text was also available.
The third interview (April 26, 2006) was conducted in the sheriff’s office in Cherokee County, Alabama. As in the case of the first interview, the investigator did not make notes, but following the interview, he made a written report of what he recalled Barbara saying.
In the three statements she made to investigators in April 2006, Barbara said that all three of the fatal shots were fired by Schiess. In one of those statements, she said that she did not know whether or not Schiess had killed Darlene because she could not see clearly. Schiess had broken her glasses by hitting her in the face with the butt of the shotgun when she began growing hysterical during the incident.
In July and August of 2007, Barbara’s cellmate Tonya Regalado reported to personnel at the Cherokee County Jail that she had talked with Barbara about the murder of Darlene Roberts. Their conversation of July 18, 2007, Regalado claimed, was about Schiess’s finding out that Barbara had had an affair with Vernon Roberts, and that was why she and Schiess went to Alabama—so that Schiess could get revenge on Vernon by having sex with Darlene.
Prosecutors did not ask Regalado during the trial about her reported second conversation with Barbara on August 20, 2007, but Regalado’s written report of this conversation was made a part of the court file that Judge Rains reviewed. In this second written report, Regalado claimed that during this conversation Barbara told her that Schiess had found a video of her and Vernon having sex.
On August 22, 2007, Regalado reported a third conversation with Barbara. Regalado’s testimony about this third talk is highly incriminating. Among other things, she testified that Barbara admitted that she had shot Darlene twice, once in the neck and once in the back, and that Schiess also had shot Darlene twice. Regalado went on to say that Barbara claimed her eyeglasses were broken by the shotgun recoil.
In each of her statements to investigators, Barbara had laid the blame on Schiess. She told the officers that even though she and Vernon Roberts had been divorced for some time, she had an affair with him in October 2005, and that Schiess intended to kidnap Darlene Roberts in order to hurt Vernon the way that he believed Vernon had hurt him. This claim of a sexual motive for the murder fit the explanation given by Barbara to Regalado during their jailhouse conversations.
Judge Rains then presented his findings on weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case.
The law, he said, provided that the punishment for the capital offenses Barbara had been convicted of was either life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death. The law also required that the punishment that should be imposed depended on whether any aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, and, if so, whether the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances.
An aggravating circumstance, he explained, is a circumstance specified by ALA. CODE 143-A-5-49 (1975). A mitigating circumstance is a circumstance specified by ALA. CODE 13-1-5-51 (1975). Mitigating circumstances could also include any aspect of Barbara’s character or background, any circumstances surrounding the offense, and any mitigating circumstances which Barbara’s defense might offer in their appeal for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole instead of death. ALA. CODE 13A-5-52(1975).
The process of weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to arrive at a fair and just sentence did not rely on numerical comparison. Instead, Judge Rains said, it meant that all the circumstances relevant to the sentence were assembled and considered to determine whether the proper sentence, in view of all the relevant circumstances, was life imprisonment without parole, or the death penalty.
If the evidence offered by the defense in mitigation was disputed, the state then had the burden of disproving the disputed mitigation evidence by a preponderance of the evidence.
Judge Rains then outlined his findings concerning whether or not aggravating circumstances existed in Barbara’s case.
According to ALA. CODE 13A-5-47(d) (1975), the trial court would be required to make written findings concerning whether or not the aggravating circumstances enumerated in ALA. CODE 13A-5-49(1975) existed.
The judge said he found the following aggravating circumstances to exist:
1. The capital offense was committed while Barbara was engaged in, was an accomplice in, or was a party to an attempt to commit kidnapping or an attempted abduction of Darlene Roberts, while intending to harm her.
2. The capital offense was committed while Barbara was engaged in, was an accomplice in, or attempting to kidnap or abduct Darlene Roberts while intending to terrorize her.
In addition to those two aggravating circumstances, which the court found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, the state urged the court to also find additional aggravating circumstance existed: that the capital offense in question was
especially heinous, atrocious or cruel compared to other Capital offenses.
In the moments following Darlene’s stop to assist an apparently stranded vehicle, she was bound, gagged, chased, shot, and killed. Those moments were without a doubt extremely torturous and terrifying for Darlene Roberts. She was the prey of her pursuers, and her murder was especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel as compared to other capital offenses. Accordingly, the court found this third aggravating circumstance was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
In addition to those statutory aggravating circumstances the court set out, Judge Rains said, the court also considered the other statutory aggravating circumstances given in ALA. CODE 13A-5-49 (1975) and found that none of those other aggravating circumstances existed in the case.
Findings Concerning the Existence or Non-Existence of Statutory Mitigating Circumstances
Judge Rains said that pursuant to Alabama Code 13A-5-47(d) (1975), the trial court was required to make written findings concerning the existence of mitigating circumstances given in ALA. Code 13A-5-51(1975).
He said that the court had considered whether or not the following statutory mitigating circumstances existed in the case:
1. Whether the defendant had any significant history of prior criminal activity.
In the jury’s deliberation of a sentence they would recommend in this case, he said, there was no evidence that Barbara had any history of significant criminal activity. In addition, the presentence report prepared by the office of pardons and parole did not indicate she had any significant history of previous criminal activity.
Judge Rains said Barbara had no evidence of earlier crimes; therefore, he said that he found that particular mitigating circumstance did exist in her case.
2. Whether the capital offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
On February 13, 2007, the district attorney filed a Motion to have the judge order a mental evaluation to determine Barbara’s competency to stand trial and to determine her mental state at the time that Darlene was killed. The evaluation was ordered by Circuit Judge Randall L. Cole on June 18, 2007.
In a report filed on September 4, 2007, Dr. Doug McKeown stated that Barbara had a significant history of psychiatric problems and trouble with treatment for a primary bipolar disorder. She also had difficulty with panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder due to a serious motor vehicle accident. She had been seen on an outpatient basis in Conyers, Georgia, and reported a history of approximately six hospitalizations at Windwood Hospital and one hospitalization at Northwestern Hospital. Her last psychiatric hospitalization was in July 2006.
The doctor reported that Barbara had a well-documented history of a bipolar disorder for which she continued to be treated. Depressive symptoms appeared to predominate with also some indications of post-traumatic stress disorder from her traffic accident. Some anxiety symptoms were also in evidence, he reported.
Diagnostically, he said, she demonstrated depressed-type bipolar disorder.