Opinion ID: 2639434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forester's Testimony

Text: Forester did not attempt to obtain Darlene's school records because he did not believe they really [would have] added anything. He did not subpoena Darlene's county health or mental health records because at that time, those records were generally not discoverable. He did not subpoena Darlene's psychiatric records because he had a clear understanding of her psychological profile and did not think such records were necessary in this case.
Forester testified that Darlene stated to him, prior to the preliminary hearing, that she did not want to talk to him. Forester added that it was the trial prosecutor's practice to instruct witnesses that they did not have to talk to the defense, and thereafter, they didn't talk to us, even when we attempted to talk to them. On one occasion, his investigator, Larry Fuller, saw Darlene in the district attorney's office alcove and tried to talk to her, and District Attorney Ron Tepper went ballistic. Forester stated that Darlene would not talk to the defense. Other potential witnesses were hostile to the defense as well, and would not provide information. Darlene's parents were hostile towards the defense. The only person who did cooperate was Joe Crespin.
Forester stated he had considered hiring a psychologist or psychiatrist, but he did not think it was necessary in this case. [11] He explained that he kn[e]w [petitioner] confessed his crime to nobody because that was just not [him], and that he did not confess to Darlene because she married him after the alleged confession. Instead, Forester believed that Darlene was present at the three homicides, which, given her grant of total immunity, presented a problem all along in cross-examination because it wouldn't help [petitioner] a lot for her to confess that she was in fact present when he did all these murders. Forester added: So I think all of my cross-examination and the investigation of her background or her psychiatric profile was tempered by that problem. Forester outlined his trial strategy: I had my own theory and my own trial tactics with respect to the case as to her. And my problem was that I believed, and to this day I believe, she was present when all these things were committed. Forester added that he did not need a psychiatric expert to tell him that the reason Darlene went to a psychiatric unit after Debbie's disappearance was a result of the fact that she had participated in these offenses. When asked whether a report that stated Darlene was delusional would have assisted his cross-examination, Forester replied: I do not believe her to be a delusional person and I would not have retained a psychiatrist to establish something that I didn't believe. Forester provided his reasons for his belief that Darlene was involved: She was described in the trial as [petitioner's] automation [ sic: automaton] by [the trial prosecutor] and I ... would agree with that. That she did whatever [petitioner] wanted her to do. That she was there when he wanted her to be there. And that she was always with him when he wasn't working and when she could get away from the foster home. She was with him all the time. And as petitioner had only one friend in town, Joe Crespin, and everybody [else] in town really hated him, Forester felt that none of the victims would have gotten into petitioner's car unless Darlene was present. Forester acknowledged that of course Darlene had never admitted being present at the murders during her interrogations, the preliminary hearing, or the trial.
Neither Forester nor the prosecutor had transcripts prepared of Darlene's three November 9 taped interviews or the December 4 taped interview with the sheriff's deputies. Forester said he listened to all of the tapes four or five times. He also reviewed the reports associated with each tape. He said he made notes of the tapes, but he could not find them in his files. He thought Darlene was easily led and he thought she was trying to please the investigators because she was, in fact, involved in the murders. Forester bridled at the suggestion he was lazy for not having the tapes transcribed. When the referee asked him whether it would have been better to put the tapes before the jury, Forester explained it was just a question of technique. He believed the reports adequately summarized the tapes and he believed Darlene's cross-examination was based on all the information before him, including the tapes. When the referee persisted that playing the tapes would have been a more effective method of cross-examination, Forester disagreed. To his thinking, Darlene, under police pressure, told police about petitioner's confession because she was present at the murders. Forester stated, Isn't that why she really broke down in the end?