Opinion ID: 704006
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Andrews's Representation

Text: 145 A full understanding of the issues in this appeal requires a more complete examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding E. Ray Andrews's representation of Betty Lou Beets than the majority provides. It is clear from the record of Beets's trial and from the record of the federal habeas proceedings that the testimony of Andrews was critical to Beets's defense that she did not murder Jimmy Don Beets for remuneration. It is also clear from the record of the federal habeas proceedings that Andrews contemplated obtaining the media rights contract very early in his representation of Beets, long before the trial began. 146 As the majority notes, in late 1984, more than a year after Jimmy Don's disappearance, the mobile home in which Beets lived was destroyed by fire. 1 The insurance company, apparently suspicious of the claim, resisted paying on the policy. Thus, in his testimony at the federal habeas proceeding, Andrews agreed that Beets came to [him] looking for insurance benefits, but not with respect to the death of Jimmy Don Beets. Instead, Andrews testified, Beets approached him for help in collecting the proceeds from the insurance policy covering the mobile home. 147 At the habeas proceeding, Andrews testified that he believed that he had suggested to Beets, and thought he was obligated to suggest, pursuing any benefits that might be available as a result of Jimmy Don's disappearance. As Andrews testified, Ms. Beets never pushed me like some clients would for money, proceeds, and it was ... through independent investigation that I found out that she had money maybe due and payable or owing to her. Andrews and Beets agreed that Andrews, in a contingent fee arrangement, would help Beets pursue any benefits to which she might be entitled. 148 After his initial efforts proved unsuccessful, Andrews sought the assistance of brothers Bruce L. and Randell C. Roberts, attorneys who were practicing in Tyler, Texas. According to Randell Roberts's affidavit that was admitted into the record of the habeas proceeding in lieu of live testimony, Andrews arranged for himself, Beets, and Randell Roberts to meet. Roberts recalled that Andrews did most of the talking at that initial meeting, and that: 149 With respect to potential life insurance benefits ... Ms. Beets was able to provide ... very little information. It was my impression that she believed at the time that there were probably some life insurance or pension benefits due to her, however, she appeared to know very little about the amount of the benefits in question or the potential insurance companies or other sources which would be responsible for these benefits. 150 Eventually, Randell Roberts passed the file to his brother Bruce, who began looking for benefits. At Beets's trial, Bruce Roberts testified that when [he] first took the case, [Beets's] primary concern was ... with the fire insurance company. Bruce Roberts also testified that Beets had what looked like part of a policy from the credit union in Dallas. She also knew that she had or was asking me to check into pension benefits. Bruce Roberts further testified, and later reemphasized in his affidavit which was also admitted into the record of the habeas proceeding, that Beets had no idea what benefits she may have been entitled to. Despite Beets's ignorance about any benefits she may have been due, Bruce Roberts pursued the claims, writing letters and making telephone calls to anyone he thought might have owed Beets money as a result of her husband's disappearance. 151 Bruce Roberts's efforts met with some success, and he had Jimmy Don declared dead and secured a settlement with the City of Dallas for some pension funds. In early June of 1985, before the settlement was finalized, Jimmy Don's skeletal remains were unearthed from a wishing well in front of the mobile home. Beets was subsequently arrested and charged with murder. 2 The case, as the majority notes, generated significant local and national media attention. Andrews agreed to represent Beets in the murder trial, and there is evidence that from very early on in his representation of Beets, Andrews envisioned profiting from the Betty Lou Beets story. 152 The same month that Beets was arrested and that Andrews began his representation of Beets--June 1985--Andrews associated Gilbert M. Hargrave to assist in the trial. According to Hargrave's testimony in the federal habeas proceeding, in June of 1985, long before the trial began and before Hargrave had agreed to work on the case, Andrews stated,  'I'm going to get the book rights and I'll give you twenty percent of the book rights.'  Hargrave also testified that [Andrews] thought the case was a valuable case, that the book rights were valuable, that it was notorious, famous, ... and that it would generate a lot of income-producing type of publicity for himself and myself. 153 Additionally, well before Beets's trial commenced, Andrews undertook efforts to secure the media rights. The record of the federal habeas proceeding contains two draft versions of a contract assigning the media rights of the trial to Andrews's son. Specifically, there is a typed draft of a media rights contract dated September 23, 1985 and a handwritten draft of the same document, presumably written sometime earlier. Thus, even though the majority notes that [o]n October 8, just after Beets's trial commenced, she signed a contract transferring all literary and media rights in her case to Andrews's son, Beets v. Collins, 65 F.3d at 1261 (5th Cir.1995) (en banc), it is clear from the record that securing the media rights was on Andrews's mind virtually from the beginning of his representation of Beets in connection with her indictment for Jimmy Don's murder. 3 As it developed, the assignment of the media rights was the consideration for Andrews's services in defending Beets. 154 During the trial, Andrews had two lines of defense. His principal strategy during the guilt phase of the trial was simply to show that Beets did not commit the murder. Andrews, however, left little doubt that his secondary strategy was to try to attack the State's proof on their claim that [Beets] did it for remuneration. As co-counsel Hargrave testified at the habeas proceeding, [t]he basic theory [of the defense] was that [Beets] was not guilty, that she hadn't committed the act that she was under indictment for and that if she actually had that she certainly hadn't done so for remuneration. 155 Accordingly, during trial, Andrews repeatedly attempted to make clear to the jury that it was his suggestion that Beets seek out benefits resulting from Jimmy Don's disappearance. As noted above, Andrews elicited testimony from Bruce Roberts that pursuing benefits from Jimmy Don's disappearance was not suggested by Beets. Moreover, during his examination of Beets, Andrews attempted to show that Beets was not interested in any insurance benefits. 4 Further, during his closing argument, Andrews again attempted to convey that he had suggested pursuing insurance and pension benefits, stating: 156 They're saying that [Beets] killed Jimmy Don Beets for insurance money. Ladies and gentlemen, she didn't even know anything about insurance, how much insurance he had or anything. Me and other lawyers inquired into this. Never called me in nearly two years.... Does that sound like somebody that's out after insurance money? 157 Andrews reemphasized this near the end of his argument, asking the jury: 158 Did [the prosecutor] ever prove to you, people that she ever collected any of his retirement proceeds? ... [T]he only proof that came in was a lawyer works for money. If a lawyer sees ... there's a case there, they're going to go after it. And I probably should have gone after it faster. I'm certainly glad now I didn't. 159 Viewing the record in this case, there is no question that attempting to show that Beets did not act for remunerative purposes was an important aspect of Andrews's strategy. Andrews's efforts to accomplish this objective, both in examination and in argument, were neutralized to some extent by the court's repeated instruction that what the lawyers say is not evidence. As Beets's counsel, Andrews, the only person besides Beets who could testify about exactly how the pursuit of the insurance and retirement benefits began, was precluded from testifying, and the jury was instructed not to consider as evidence any statements which he made about his involvement. Moreover, it is possible that the jury discounted the statements that he did make at trial as impermissible efforts to bolster his client's case. 160