Published: May 09, 2008 12:52 am         

Judge decision expected soon in Woodruff capital murder case

GREENVILLE — A state district judge said he would make a decision within a week as to whether the Hunt County District Attorney’s Office should be required to release evidence it considers privileged work product to the defense team representing Brandon Dale Woodruff, charged with capital murder involving the deaths of his parents.

During the latest pretrial hearing in the case Thursday morning, Assistant District Attorney Noble Walker said the office will agree with a defense request to hand over the disputed evidence to Visiting Judge Webb Baird, and have him decide what, if anything, should be given to the defense. But Walker again bristled with the defense’s assertions that the office had acted inappropriately.

“There has been no misconduct in this case,” Walker said.

Defense attorney Katherine Ferguson said the team is doing whatever it can to represent Woodruff.

“It is our duty to raise these issues and protect our client’s rights,” Ferguson said.

It was the first scheduled hearing in the case since the presiding judge appointed a special prosecutor from the Texas Attorney General’s Office. District Judge Richard A. Beacom swore-in Adrienne McFarland and Laura Bayouth Popps in late November.

Prior to the start of the hearing, Baird met with both sides in chambers and instructed them he did not want to hear from the several witnesses who had been subpoenaed to testify, but instead only wanted to hear about the issues raised during motions submitted last month by both sides.

The initial motions were filed by chief defense counsel Jerry Spencer Davis, seeking additional information which might be available resulting from the District Attorney’s Office concerning the taping of Woodruff’s calls from the Hunt County Jail.

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

Walker’s response motion argued the office did not intend to provide the information to the defense, claiming it was privileged work product.

Woodruff, 21, has pleaded not guilty and remains in custody at the jail in lieu of $1 million bond on one count of capital murder in connection with the deaths of his parents, Dennis and Norma Woodruff, who were slain inside their home near Royse City. The couple’s bodies were discovered Oct. 18, 2005.

Beacom ruled on Sept. 18, 2007 that Woodruff’s Sixth Amendment constitutional rights to confidentiality were violated when prosecutors listened to the recordings of telephone calls from the jail between Woodruff and his defense team.

Beacom appointed the special prosecutor based in part on a request from the District Attorney’s office, but has repeatedly refused motions from defense attorneys to throw out the case against Woodruff and dismiss the capital murder indictment outright.

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

Ferguson said the defense team believed there was no privilege attached to the notes, as they would provide a clearer picture of whether prosecutors felt any evidence was uncovered during the calls.

“We have to see what they learned,” Ferguson said. “The best record of that is in their files.”

Ferguson asked that Baird be allowed to conduct an “in camera” inspection of all of the District Attorney’s files regarding the case, then decide what items may indeed be considered work product.

Walker responded the office would turn the files over to Baird, but noted how it was an issue which had already been addressed more than once.

“We have repeatedly stated ... that we gathered no evidence from listening to those tapes,” Walker said, also reminding the judge that the office had earlier provided the defense team with copies of all of the calls, and that it had yet to prove there had been any violation of the attorney/client privilege.

“We think this is an end around to do what they are supposed to do,” Walker said.

Baird said making any evidentiary determinations from the recordings, if he agrees to listen to them, would not be easy.

“You agree there will be a certain amount of subjective decisions I’ll have to make,” Baird said, adding he intended to issue a decision regarding the motions by the middle of next week.