Opinion ID: 168528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Proffered testimony of Mr. Bayless

Text: 32 On April 10, 1997, after Mr. Brown testified and the prosecution rested, the defense attempted to introduce the testimony of Mark Bayless, another occupant of the Oklahoma County jail's holding cell. On April 7, 1997, three days earlier, defense counsel had notified the prosecution of its intent. According to defense counsel, Mr. Bayless 33 was present during the entire time that Jay Brown and Terry Short were together. He'll refute every single word that Jay Brown testified to. He also will testify that the drawings and the writings were done by someone else, not Terry Short, and that Jay Brown's a liar. 34 . . . . In [a] criminal case a snitch or a government informant witness is the most suspicious sort of witness . . . because he is the only person on the face of the earth that the state claims Terry Short confessed to, and . . . his testimony . . . is very critical to the state's case. 35 Id. at 193 (emphasis added). 36 Defense counsel stated that the first time he ever knew about the photographs of the holding cell was on March 31, 1997, despite Mr. Brown's having testified at the preliminary hearing over a year and a half earlier. I immediately had . . . an investigator in our office[] search for prisoners who were present during that period of time. Id. The State did not attempt to interview Mr. Bayless after being notified about him. 37 The State responded that Mr. Bayless could not refute what Mr. Short told Mr. Brown. It reiterated that the photographs had been made available to defense counsel for over a year, and that current defense counsel had been in the prosecutor's office to review files more than two weeks earlier. Defense counsel responded: 38 The nature of Mr. Bayless's testimony is a direct refutation of this government informant or snitch. . . . 39 The remedy . . . which would correct the situation would be to allow the state to talk to this witness. But in a capital murder case where a discovery violation has occurred . . . then there are several remedies, and one is to recess the case in order to give us time to investigate what is a terribly harsh penalty to punish Terry Short with any defects in his lawyers. 40 [H]is testimony is crucial . . . . because [t]hey have not talked about any admissions by Terry Short admitting to the crime. . . . 41 Id. at 194-95. 42 Defense counsel then clarified that Mr. Bayless would state that Terry Short did not draw that obscene picture on the wall, that he did not write, [']burn, Brenda, burn['] on the wall, those are two things that he saw someone else do, he's willing to testify to it, and it's relevant and it's crucial to the defense. Id. at 198-99. 43 The trial court agreed with the prosecution that there's no way he could know and tell the jury what the defendant did or did not tell Jay Brown. Id. at 199. The court concluded that cross-examination provided enough opportunity to challenge Mr. Brown's credibility. The court also rejected defense counsel's argument that Mr. Bayless might be a rebuttal witness.