Opinion ID: 1199597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Scarlet Nerad

Text: In June 1994, Nerad was working as a CAP investigator. She and a colleague, Bryer, were assigned to interview the jurors in petitioner's case, including Gholston. When the two first met with Gholston, Bryer gave Gholston a CAP business card. The two investigators did not explain what CAP was, but they identified themselves as working on behalf of the attorney who was trying to help petitioner. [12] Nerad believed they made their status clear to all jurors they approached; they did not attempt to trick or mislead Gholston or any other juror. [13] On the first interview day with Gholston, no notes or recordings were made. [14] However, Nerad and Bryer immediately returned to their hotel and drafted a declaration from memory. They did not attempt to present a biased or slanted version of the facts. A CAP attorney edited the draft by facsimile transmission (fax). Probably the next day, Nerad and Bryer returned to Gholston's home with the completed draft. As usual, they had printed two copies. They gave one to Gholston and explained that she should follow along as Bryer read the declaration aloud. Nerad and Bryer went over the draft twice with Gholston. During the first reading, Bryer made handwritten interlineations in response to Gholston's specific requests. Then Gholston and Bryer together read over the revised draft, after which Nerad personally witnessed Gholston initial each page and sign the declaration. Similar procedures were followed in other juror interviews. Gholston, like other jurors, received no copy of her signed declaration. During the first reading, Gholston stopped Bryer at various times to discuss specific points and suggest changes. Gholston personally requested each of the handwritten interlineations, which were inserted by Bryer, then initialed by Gholston. Among others, these interlineations included references to the skinnier Hamilton sister, the claim that Gholston noticed increased patrols after calling the police dispatcher, and Gholston's observation that from reading detective novels, she knew it was likely petitioner could arrange for a family member to kill a juror. During the first reading, the declaration's description of Gholston's pretrial conversation with her neighbor prompted considerable discussion. Gholston expressed concern about including this episode, particularly the fact that the ridiculous story about a Canadian had persuaded her petitioner was guilty. Gholston indicated [s]he knew that was inappropriate and she was concerned about the consequences of admitting that, i.e., that petitioner might get out. [15] Nonetheless, Gholston acknowledged that the declaration gave an accurate description of the incident, including that the Canadian story had caused her to prejudge petitioner's guilt. Gholston did not ask that the wording be changed. [16] Gholston spoke at length of Uncle Frank. She explained that this relative, whom she never met alive, had pursued a career of robbing banks and killing tellers because when he was a child, a bank had foreclosed on the family farm. Gholston called Uncle Frank a guardian angel who had helped her throughout life during difficult times. She told of a time when Uncle Frank had lifted her over some water or had helped her get across [some] type of water or stream. Gholston did say Uncle Frank's spirit settled on her during jury selection, and that he actually talked to her, but this latter information was not literally included in the 1994 declaration. The phraseology actually used represents the most succinct solid description [Gholston] was able to give, in that she had a difficulty describing what had happened because it was a personal experience that [seemed] difficult for her to verbalize. Though Gholston recounted the experience in several ways, she did end up saying Uncle Frank persuaded her that he had repented his criminal career and that his wrongs needed to be righted. As the 1994 declaration reports, Gholston explicitly stated her understanding from Uncle Frank that finding [petitioner] guilty was the way to right these wrongs and that after Uncle Frank appeared to her, she wanted to serve on petitioner's jury. The declaration also accurately reports Gholston's statement that Uncle Frank stayed with her during penalty deliberations, assuring her that the death penalty was the right decision and that she should do right by his wrongs.