The Miller Evidence

PLANTEDEVIDENCE.COM

JUSTICE DENIED!


	Email Me

The Miller Evidence

Testimony of Charles Daniel Hillard

The state attempted to present evidence that they claimed connected me to Miller’s death during the trial for the murder of Gunnarsson.

At trial, the state presented a witness by the name of Charles Daniel Hillard. Hillard testified that prior to Miller’s death, I had stated to him that “I wish something bad would happen to Miller” (Volume II, TP. 680).

However, the state’s true evidence from their own witnesses showed that Hillard had given two statements to the police. In his statement of January 4, 1994, he in fact tells the police that I had stated to him prior to Miller’s death that “I wish something bad would happen to Miller.” However, evidence at trial showed that Hillard had also been interviewed by police on December 10, 1993, the day after Miller’s death and he told the police that I never spoke to him about Ms. Miller (Volume II, TP. 732).

It’s clear from the state’s own evidence developed at trial that Hillard contradicts himself in his statements taken less than a month apart and his testimony made no sense. If I had never spoken to Hillard about Miller, as he clearly told the police on December 10, 1993, then I could never have made the statement which he testified I made.

On appeal, this evidence concerning Hillard’s testimony was addressed by the Appellate Courts. However, my appellate counsel, Thomas King, never made the courts aware of the true evidence developed at trial concerning Hillard’s testimony. All the appellate courts read was what the state had written in their brief, that I had stated to Hillard prior to Miller’s death that “I wish something bad would happen to Miller”. The appellate courts based their decision on this issue without having been made aware of all the facts concerning Hilliard's inconsistent testimony, which actually made no sense.

Back to Top

Letter to Kay Weden, Don’t Force Me Into Something

At trial, the state also entered into evidence a letter that I had written to Kay Weden, and delivered to her home on December 7, 1993. In the letter, I had stated twice, “Don’t force me into anything” (Volume I, TPP. 214-220).

It is clear from the state’s theory that when I wrote the letter to Kay Weden and stated “Don’t force me into something” that I meant, if you don’t come back to me, then you’ll force me to kill your mother.

Kay Weden, the state’s own witness, was asked at trial by the District Attorney Tom Rusher and defense counsel Bruce Kaplan about what she understood the letter to mean. Kay Weden testified that the letter and passage meant, don’t force me to make life without you, and with a girl named Kim (Volume I, PT. 204) [404(b) hearing TP. 101].

By her own admission under oath, Kay Weden testified that she understood what the passage meant, and the passage “Don’t force me into something” clearly did not mean what the District Attorney implied. Again this evidence and the letter to Kay Weden were directly addressed by the appellate courts during direct appeal. However, my appellate counsel again failed to address this issue and make the courts aware of the true evidence developed at trial.

Back to Top

Ballistics Evidence – Miller

It was the state’s theory and their belief, and it was written in the state’s brief on direct appeal, that Miller was shot with a Colt .38 caliber Detective Special.

At trial, the state called ballistics expert, Al Langley of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation as a witness. Langley testified that one bullet and nine bullet fragments were removed from Miller’s body. Langley’s testimony revealed that the bullet and nine fragments removed from Miller’s body could have been fired from a .38 caliber or .357 caliber or 9mm weapon (Volume II, TP. 620).

Langley further testified that the bullet and the nine fragments could have been fired from a Colt, Miroku, Eig, Garate Anita or AMT firearm (Volume II, TP. 620). Langley’s laboratory report clearly supported his testimony.

Langley testified at trial that just in the Colt brand of firearm alone, in the .38 or .357 caliber, there would be twenty different models that would have been consistent with having fired the bullet and the nine fragments removed from Miller (Volume II, TPP. 630-631). His testimony also revealed that this did not include the other four brands, Eig, Miroku, Garate Anita and AMT, which also had numerous models in .38 and .357 caliber, that would have also been consistent with having fired the bullet and bullet fragments removed from Miller (Volume II, TP. 620-621).

In fact, Langley attempted to match one of the bullet fragments removed from Miller to the bullet removed from Miller but he could not determine if they were fired from the same weapon (Volume II, TP. 621-622).

Defense counsel Chester Whittle had spoken with Agent Langley prior to trial about the ballistics evidence in the Miller case. Langley admitted that the bullet and bullet fragments removed from Miller were too deformed to tell anything about them, not even the manufacturer.

When the state failed to support their theory that Miller was shot with a Colt .38 Detective Special, the state called as a witness Sheriff Barbara Pickens of the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Pickens testified that when I was employed as a detective with the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office in the 1970’s and 1980’s her records revealed that I have been issued a Colt .38 Detective Special. However, trial evidence from Sheriff Pickens showed that her records revealed that I had turned the Colt .38 Detective Special back in when I left the department on November 17, 1982 (Volume II, TP. 510). Trial testimony also showed that during an inventory that was conducted in 1994, twelve years after I had left the sheriff’s Department, the weapon could not be located (Volume II, TP. 510).

It is quite clear that, since the state was claiming that Miller was shot with a Colt .38 Detective Special which was not even supported by their own ballistics evidence presented to the jury, I was somehow able to get this weapon back after it was turned in and use it to kill Miller.

Evidence that was never presented to the jury by defense counsel showed that investigators had come up with this theory after they had discovered that employment records revealed the weapon had been turned in on November 17, 1982, and that I had someone tamper with the records showing where the weapon had been turned in.

It was the theory of investigators that if the ink that was used showing where the weapon had been turned in and that the ink used to write the date, November 17, 1982 could be dated after 1982, it would support their theory that I had someone tamper with the records.

Investigators sent the employment records to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for ink dating tests. Tests conducted by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service showed that the ink used to write the entry showing where the Colt .38 Detective Special had been turned in on November 17, 1982 was not dated after 1982.

This evidence proved that the theory of the investigators was not supported by their own evidence from their experts. However, defense counsel never brought this evidence out to the jury.

Sheriff Pickens also testified that she had no reason to doubt the record showing where I had turned the Colt .38 Detective Special in on November 17, 1982 was not accurate since the entry was made in her own handwriting. She further testified that the records from the 1980’s that were kept by the Sheriff’s Office were not very accurate and the firearm could have been re-issued and a record of the re-issue was not written down (Volume II, TPP. 5l3-516).

Back to Top