Opinion ID: 1145492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Kim Robinson

Text: Kim Robinson's testimony directly contradicted Nordstrom's account in various particulars. Robinson confirmed that she was a friend of Nordstrom and worked with her at the bank. She first heard of the murders from coworker Barbara Peterson, who knew the victims and whose husband was the arresting officer. Robinson said she also heard about the killings on the television news and from customers. She said there was a lot of publicity about the case. The day after the crime, she heard petitioner had been arrested for the crime. Robinson was acquainted with petitioner from having attended the same middle school with him. She said he was not a personal friend and that she did not socialize with him. Robinson testified that after the slayings, there were discussions about the crime at the bank. Regarding these discussions, Robinson said, A lot of it was very biased, because it was coming from people ... that lived in Loleta. Um, we just heard a lot of things going on ... because ... Barbara Peterson's husband being one of the arresting officers, and Larry Whitford being one of the arresting people, so there was a big discussion. [1] When asked if Nordstrom took part in these discussions, Robinson replied,  All the employees at the bank took part in the conversation. (Italics added.) Robinson said that immediately after the crime, the employees would discuss it often. In addition, the employees would talk about the crime when one of petitioner's family members came into the bank, or when the local newspaper contained a new article about the crime. Robinson asserted that all the bank employees talked about the case and all, including Nordstrom, felt that petitioner was guilty. Robinson also testified that, prior to trial, she had personal conversations with Nordstrom about the case, and Nordstrom made negative comments about petitioner. In addition, contrary to Nordstrom's testimony, Robinson testified that all the tellers dealt with transactions concerning the Hitchings family savings account. When a Hitchings family member came in to make a deposit, the tellers would always discuss [the case]. Asked whether Nordstrom knew of the account prior to trial, Robinson replied, I'm sure she did, yes. When Nordstrom was chosen as a juror, Robinson was shocked because she just felt that not only Cathy, [but] anybody that worked at the bank, had too much knowledge to be on a jury and not feel bias about the case, because we had heard so many things about [petitioner], and the actual scene of the crime. After Nordstrom was chosen as a juror, Robinson testified the two would still meet most nights at Frankie's Champagne Palace. During these meetings, Nordstrom would sometimes discuss the case with Robinson, despite the fact that she was still sitting as a juror. Robinson said that [e]verything that [Nordstrom] had to say was ... very biased against [petitioner] and negative. One incident stood out in Robinson's mind because it was the first time Nordstrom spoke directly about the case. Nordstrom said petitioner deserved to be taken out, strung up or lynched up. He  he needed to have his  be sexually abused, cut up, and I ... asked her what she was saying, and she said, that, um, she felt an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and that's what happened to these people, so he deserved it, too. Robinson was sure Nordstrom uttered these comments before the case was submitted to the jury for deliberations. Robinson had had other conversations with Nordstrom about the trial, but Nordstrom had never been so direct or hostile. [H]er opinions were obviously that [petitioner] was guilty, ... but she had never been as direct. It was always subtle. Robinson was reluctant to come forward with this information because she thought the district attorney would discover Nordstrom's bias and disqualify her without Robinson's assistance. In addition, she considered Nordstrom a friend and did not want to get her in trouble. Finally, Robinson's mother still lived in the area and Robinson was afraid she would be harassed. On cross-examination, Robinson was impeached by an inconsistency between her testimony and her signed declaration. In her declaration, she said the above mentioned critical conversation with Nordstrom at Frankie's Champagne Palace occurred after the trial, whereas she testified it was during trial. Robinson explained that petitioner's counsel had prepared the declaration for her signature, that the declaration was inaccurate, and she reaffirmed that the conversation occurred during trial. In addition, although Robinson stated in a declaration that there was almost a constant discussion of the case as a result of family deposits in the Hitchings savings account, the district attorney attempted to demonstrate that petitioner's relatives made only five deposits in the subject account. The exhibits, however, reveal there were eight deposits in July and August 1982; trial began in January 1983. Robinson was rehabilitated by later questioning showing petitioner's relatives also made deposits to their own private accounts during this period. This was corroborated by the testimony of Andrea Taylor, petitioner's cousin, who testified she made several deposits into her personal account during this time. Moreover, Taylor stated that if Robinson was the teller that helped her, they would invariably discuss petitioner's case. Dolores Torgersen, petitioner's aunt, also testified. Her savings account passbook showed she made three deposits and two withdrawals from her private account in the six months prior to petitioner's trial. She testified she conducted these transactions in person at the bank.