Alan Carlson, Attorney at Law, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 74003, appears on behalf of the State of Oklahoma

MR. CARLSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on behalf of Steve and on behalf of Steve's family and on behalf of [the children], we appreciate your kind attention throughout this trial. I've watched you. We've been here a long time. It has been a long trial, but you've been very attentive and you've listened to the evidence and you've had some difficult issues, and I and Steve and everyone on behalf of Steve appreciate that.

You've heard the evidence and you've heard the court's instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and you will have those instructions when you go back in the jury room.

But I want to give to you maybe just a little bit of an analogy that may help you in this particular case. There was a man one time who had a box. And in that box he put a cat, and in with that cat he put a mouse and he sealed that box and he sealed it very tightly, and he went away and he left for 15 minutes. At the end of 15 minutes he came back and he unsealed the box and he looked in there and there was the cat, the only animal.

Now, we feel relatively certain that we know what happened to the mouse. But there was another man that had a box identical to it. And in that box he put a cat, and in that box he put a mouse, and he sealed that box and he sealed it very tightly. And he went away for 15 minutes and he came back. And he opened that box and when he unsealed that box he looked in and again there was one animal, the cat. But on close inspection down in one little corner was a little hole. We're not so certain, are we? That's doubt, ladies and gentlemen.

And let's look at some of the holes in the state's case. In this particular case the state talks to you about the contact lenses, and I want to talk to you about contact lenses, too.

Ladies and gentlemen, the state's explanation of the contact lenses in this particular case is built upon incompetence they say of the people of Jane Phillips Hospital. Diane Horseman. You remember Ms. Horseman, the L.P.N. that the defense called for you and brought to you. And Diane Horseman told you that she took two contacts off of Sandra Allen, right below her eyes. Said that she took those contact lenses and that she handed them to someone, and she said, take care of these, do something with them.

And the state then criticized Mr. Conley. You remember Mr. Conley. He was the emergency medical technician that again the defense, we called him to the stand. And Mr. Conley said, I took those and I then looked for somewhere to go with them. And Mr. Conely --you remember, the state wants you to say and it's to be unrefuted that he had those particular lenses. From the standpoint he said -- do you remember his testimony? He said, I looked around for a contact lense case which had a left and a right because I knew you got to keep them separated, the left one and the right one. But on the stand he specifically says, I know I had one. I know I had one, and his opinion he had two. And he says, and he's under oath and it's unrefuted, in his opinion he gave those lenses to someone there at the emergency room.

And you remember Ms. Crossman told us that there were nurses around there, several people around there and it was busy that night. And Mr. Conley also told us he never went back into the emergency room area, treating area with those particular lenses.

And I want to show you something just a minute -- Kevin, if you'll come up here and help me --with regard to those particular lenses. There are certain things that we know in this particular case, there are certain things that are absolutely unrefuted in this particular case.

May I remove this with the court's permission? Thank you, Kevin. Ladies and gentlemen, there are certain things that we know in this case. We know that at the top of that screen we look at a whole contact lense. That's the lense that was read by Dr. Reynolds, that was read by Larry Birk, and we know right down at the bottom that we have pieces to the second contact lense.

And ladies and gentlemen, we know that Ed Conely specifically, without question, knows that he had a contact lense, and in his opinion he had two contact lenses. So regardless of how you count, we have three or four, whichever way you count it.

And I want to talk to you about the reading of these particular lenses. You remember I these marks up here for a reason. You remember as the testimony come in we talked about the particular powers.

And you remember Dr. Reynolds, who was on the stand who holds 15 patents in contact lenses and who does research at the Dean McGee Eye Institute, and I submit to you is one of the most -- foremost authorities in contact lenses in the world. He felt so strongly about the power and reading that he made in this particular case that he canceled his patients, he came here and he testified without one cent compensation, not even his mileage. And he told you that.

And he said he read that contact lense at 5.5, but that the range that he would put it in in order to give everybody the benefit of the doubt is 5.25 to 5.75.

And Larry Birk from Duffins Laboratory, and you remember Mr. Birk. Mr. Birk is the head of Duffins Laboratory, and he came in here --and Duffins Laboratory, by the way, is tthe same laboratory that Burch said he called on Tuesday before he testified in this courtroom on Thursday, Burch being the Optometrist from Caney, Kansas, Dr. Burch. That he called on Tuesday before Thursday -- he testified here Thursday, to find out how to read a contact lense.

And you remember on cross-examination Dr. Burch from Caney, Kansas, said I can't swear that's her contact lense.

Ladies and gentlemen, Larry Birk, without even knowing what Dr. Reynolds had read that contact lense at, he read it. He said the low range is 5.25, and he said, I would -- if I had to put a specific on it I'd say 5.385. That was Larry Birk's testimony. Without even knowing what Dr. Reynolds had read it at.

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you Dr. Reynolds is a true scientist, he's an optometrist, he's an M.D., and can we dispute those men's readings, without the one knowing what the other one read it at?

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you we have proven in this particular case that this contact lense is not Sandra Allen's contact lense. We can account for three for sure without question, and if you follow the testimony of Ed Conley, he believes he had four or he believes he had two which accounts for the four.

And ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that it can be no clearer that we have a minimum of three contact lenses in this case and possibly four.

But we know, we know from the testimony that this particular contact lense is not Sandra Allen's contact lense. Someone was in that house that night, and it wasn't Steve Allen.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are today the buffer between the citizen and the government. You are the protector of the citizen's rights. Today you are the law. Today you stand for the law. Not the lawyers, not the trackings of this court, not all these fancy fixtures, but it's you, ladies and gentlemen, that make that decision today, or whenever you make that decision.

Let's talk about another hole in the state's case. You'll recall that we called Melvin Hett, the O.S.B.I. man from Enid. And he came in, and you remember Mr. Hett's testimony. He said -- and I asked him, I said, there were fibers on Sandra Allen's shoe, and those are the ones I want to call your attention to. And Mr. Hett said there were fibers there of a nylon and a rayon nature. And I asked him, I said, could those have been lost in contact, and he said yes. And on cross-examination by the state I don't think they liked answer they got. He said, when you find fibers it's generally due to recent contact. Steve Allen had no rayon, no nylon clothing on. We know that. His clothing was cotton.

And I can't stand here and tell you specifically that that those fibers came -- or who they came from, but I can tell you this, that I know and I feel, from the confidence of the people who have testified in this case, that there was trace evidence in that house that night in addition to the contact lense; that had it been preserved we wouldn't be here. At least Steve Allen would not be here. And that's what a contact lense is, it's trace evidence.

And you remember Mr. Birk. I asked him, I said, and this number I wrote down right here. Let's assume that the high end of her prescription, which is minus 4.75, and the low end at which you read is a minus 5.25, is .385 a substantial difference, and he said most certainly. And if that girl had those contact lenses on with the wrong prescription, that much disparity, she couldn't read, she'd have trouble, she'd have trouble sewing.

And we know that she sewed. We know that she worked at Dillards, we know that she handled charge slips, we know that she did close work. And there's absolutely no history of any problems with her seeing. And Dr. Burch even admitted that.

The one call he got had to do with, he said, an irritation which he thought was allergies which you'll recall turned out to be, from Steve's testimony, conjunctivitis, which was cleared up by drops at the emergency room. And Dr. Burch thought it was allergies, but nevertheless, it was conjunctivitis.

And ladies and gentlemen, had that contact lense been a wrong prescription we know Sandra Allen worked in an optometrist office and had, for several years when she as in Missouri, do we really think that she would have tolerated any lense but the right prescription, let alone, let alone the great disparity in the prescription that we have in this case.

And ladies and gentlemen, the way that prescription comes, the way it's filled, it comes from the manufacturer and it's printed right on the bottle. Burch told you that. It's printed right on the bottle minus 4.75 and minus 4.25.

And you put some on her eyes and you adjust the focus. Some of you have been to an eye doctor. You know how that happens. They adjust your prescription until you see and you see well and your correct at 20/20. And his prescription she corrected at 20/20 with minus 4.75 and minus 4.25.

And, ladies and gentlemen, with the reading minus 5.25, minus 5.5, there's no way that girl would have worn that contact lense.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whose contact lense that is. I wished I did. I really do. All of us would have an easier job.

But with regard to Mr. Hett. Mr. Hett told you about those fibers, and those fibers were also --there were blue fibers that were found under her fingernails. And I know this, ladies and gentlemen, there was not one fiber found under Sandra Allen's fingernails that matched anything on Steve Allen.

You've heard criminalists testify in this case from start to finish, and they all will tell you that very same thing. Note a one. Not one item that matches to Steve Allen.

And you saw the sign of a struggle in that particular house, and ask yourselves, go back to your common sense, and I know you will. You're intelligent men and women. With that kind of a struggle, if Steve had struggled with Sandra, what would she have under her fingernails?

And there's a sign of a struggle, most definitely. What would she have under her fingernails? What would she have on her from Steve? Because, you see, her body was transported very quickly. And those particular items would be there from Steve if Steve were involved in this particular crime.

Now, I listened to the state's argument with regard to what the state wants you ladies and gentlemen to believe is a murder weapon in this case.

And let's take a look at something for just a minute. Do you remember the testimony in this case. We have a hammer. Let's do one thing. Some of you have hammers. All of us know what a hammer does or doesn't do. Do you remember the testimony of Dr. Baden?

And by the way, this is the particular slide that the state never showed you. The defense did. The defense introduced this particular picture, and you can look in those pictures and it'll be the defendant's exhibit.

But remember these long linear marks. And you tell me, ladies and gentlemen, how that hammer makes those marks. And I don't care -- I heard that discussion about -- from tthe state witness about how you can hold it like this or you can hold it like this, but you assume all those things. You assume all those things and let's answer how this hammer can make that long linear mark and that linear mark and that linear mark, as well as these linear marks.

And I heard the discussion from the state's witness where even if you tried to make the state's case, started talking about holding the hammer like this and jabbing like this. I could hardly believe my ears.

And you're right. I won't apologize to you for trying to bring to you, ladies and gentlemen, the best people in this country in this case. I will never apologize to you for bringing to you Dr. Baden, for bringing to you Terry Laber and Bart Epstein and Blair Gluba and Dr. Gene Reynolds, the psychologist, and Dr. A.E. Reynolds, the contact lense expert. No, I won't apologize, and I will not apologize, ladies and gentlemen, for compensating -- Steve and I compensating those men on a reasonable basis based upon their expertise for taking time away from their families and their friends to come here and render their opinions. I certainly will not apologize.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not here today standing in front of you and put a price on Steve Allen's head. I'm not here to stand in front of you and apologize that we spent thousands of dollars on Steve Allen's life.

You understand, ladies and gentlemen, that we don't have what the state has. We don't have dial an expert. We don't have -- pick up the phone and in the middle of a trial you just dial the phone on July 23rd and summons up Mr. Bevel. We can't dial the crime laboratory and say send me a criminologist, and we can't dial the crime laboratory and say send me somebody who can do glass and send me somebody who can do hair and send me somebody to do this.

Do you understand, and I'm sure you do and I don't want to belabor the point, but do you understand that we have no other way than to find people in the private sector, unless we are lucky enough and fortunate enough to find somebody who happens to be involved and is willing to come, like Terry Laber and Bart Epstein, who also work for the forensic laboratory in Minnesota and head those laboratories.

There is no other way, and I will not apologize for bringing what I consider the best people that we could get based upon our budget in this particular case.

Dr. Michael Baden told you in this particular case the hammer is not the murder weapon. And you remember what Dr. Baden said when we talked about the cuts on Sandra Allen, the incised cut, sharp cut. And he said that was caused, on cross-examination, and I don't think the state liked the answer again. But he said that was caused by some blade like instrument.

Now, some blade like instrument. I'm not going to hold that hammer up again because we all know what it looks like.

There was a lot of things that went on in that house that night before Steve Allen got there that there is, there is unrefuted evidence in this particular case that someone besides Steve Allen was there.

And ladies and gentlemen, let's talk about the state's theory of the case. The state wants you to believe that Steve Allen set this up. And if I sat over there and I understood their argument, they're trying to put him at the house at something around nine o'clock. That's what this charade is about nine o'clock.

Now, let's be reasonable. You're ladies and gentlemen with a lot of experience, and I watched you and I've looked down your faces and you've looked at mine throughout these many weeks. And we've all got lines. Maybe more than we had when we started. But by the same token we've all lived a little.

Let's think about this. We know, we know that Sandra Allen got off work at 9:15, and we know that she probably got home in about five minutes because of drive times. So she got home approximately let's say 9:20. And we know that Steve Allen wasn't there. Remember little Daniel Eastman. He tells you he wasn't there at 9:20. And we know that if she got there at 9:20 -- and we showed you by the drive times and I'm going to put a board up here in a minute and I'm going to go through those with you and show you what the significance is. We know that Steve got home at 9:30 or shortly thereafter.

But ask yourselves this. The state wants you to believe this was set up. They want you to believe that Steve broke this window, they want you to believe that the books were down. Now, ask yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, Sandra Allen comes home from work and she walks in the door and she sees books down and she sees a door broken. What does she do? I'll tell you what she does. She, one, calls the police, two, she calls a neighbor, three, she gets out of the house.

Ask the state to answer that question under their theory, that he set this up before she got home and she comes home and then he comes home at 9:30 and kills her.

Or let's take their other theory. If they have another theory their other theory would be that Steve Allen killed Sandra and then set it up. Well, I ask you this. We know this from the evidence. We know that everywhere that Steve went in that house he was leaving blood. There's a blood trail to the attic, the footprints, there's blood all over the phone where he called, there's blood where he walked around in the kitchen.

Now, where's the blood on the doorknob where he opened the door after he killed Sandra Allen? He left blood on the phone, he left blood everywhere else. Where is the blood on the footprints that leads over to the patio door? Remember Mr. Barnett examined those. The only footprints are just inside the bifold doors just off the dining room. There's no bloody footprints all the way down that carpet, all the way down to where the patio door is. And we know, we know he had blood all over his shoes because there's a bloody trail leading out to the attic. Ask yourselves that. You take either theory and you apply it to Steve Allen and you can throw it over your shoulder. Because the evidence will not show that. The evidence will not fit that.

Now, I listened to the state make a big point of little [boy] in the car. And Steve, you'll remember, gets out of the car and dashes into the house. Now, let's look at the crime scene photographs. And Steve Allen told you he sat or later was found a cup on the car. Steve never told you -- he said, I guess it was found there. He didn't really know what he did with it, but look at these crime scene photographs. There sits that cup.

And the state wants you to believe that Steve Allen goes around and gets the sonic receipt and he gets the Dillards receipt, and wants you to believe he sets that cup on the car. Is that what they want you to believe that happened.

But I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, if you'll think about it, you and I would do the same thing with [boy]. You pull into your driveway, you see someone, your light hits someone. And think about it. You don't know whether there's one person in that house, two people in that house with your wife. You don't know what's going on. So you hit the door lock and you slam the door and you know your two year old is at least secure in that car until you can get into the house.

And I ask you, think about it. What are you going to do with a two year old in your arms if you think there may be someone in your house. Think about that. I beseech you to search your own minds. None of us might know what we would do, but that certainly is logical, very logical. And the state has tried to make a big point of that in this particular case. Good gracious, ladies and gentlemen. I submit that I'd do the same thing. And I think each one of you might do the same thing.

You know, there's been a lot of testimony in this particular case with regard to Steve Allen. And I remember the words about counsel said she. I watched Steve Allen testify, and I think you all remember the hush in this courtroom, and I think you all remember the last question that counsel asked Steve Allen, and his answer, no, I didn't kill Sandra Allen. I loved her. I didn't kill Sandra. I loved her.

And let's look at some of the evidence that we have in this particular case. And I want to talk to you for just a minute about some things that are very important. And I want to preface it with one thing, and I want to preface it with the state's own witness. You remember Dr. Hemphill, and Dr. Hemphill was -- battled with me a little bit, if that's the proper characterization, with regard to the hammer. And I said, Dr. Hemphill, wouldn't you agree with me that someone would pick up a hammer like that, and he said, well, I can't tell you what a normal person would do because a normal person would not have done this act.

And I agree with that. Dr. Hemphill and I do agree on that point. Well, let's look at Steve Allen. Let's look at every particular testimony we have on Steve Allen. Every one of those marks are between 30 and 70. And you remember Dr. Reynolds tells you that between 30 and 70 you're absolutely normal.

And he was tested again and again in this particular case, and I am -- and I won't apologize for the fact that we brought this evidence to you, the fact that we were able to show you Steve Allen is a perfectly normal individual. And I won't apologize, and I know Dr. Reynolds won't either, that we've gone to great extent in this particular case to show you what really is behind Stephen Allen, what really makes Steve Allen tick.

And I can't submit to you anything any more telltale than Steve Allen's drawing of June 13th, 1990. When he was asked to draw his family, and this is two days after his wife has been killed, and he draws his wife in the picture with him and his to kids. Three kids. I'm sorry.

Steve Allen didn't even know what he had done. You remember I asked Dr. Reynolds, I said, did you ever reveal the results of your testing to Steve Allen, and he said, no. And I doubt that Steve Allen -- well, I know this. I know that Steve Allen didn't know what the results of his tests were until we were in this courtroom in this trial and he heard for the first time.

Ladies and gentlemen, it didn't happen just once. Steve didn't do that just once. Steve's done that again and again. In September of 1990 he did the same thing. And I imagine there are probably -- if our spouses sat in this courtroom and heard this testimony, there's probably a lot of our spouses that wished that we would do that.

And finally, we brought the evidence to you that Steve does, in fact, realize that Sandra's gone and won't be back, because in June of 1991 Steve finally takes Sandra out of the family picture. And why does that happen? We all know that in practicality it takes a while to accept the death of a spouse.

But there's one more important thing that counsel makes a point of that I want to dispel once and for all. And that is he raises the point of shaking. He raises the point that now we say he says he shook her twice. Well, I'm going to get -- to show you the notes of Dr. Reynolds of June 13th, 1990, when Steve talked with Dr. Reynolds. You'll notice right up here, she's on her side. I pick her up and I shake her. I tried to get a response. And we come down here where Steve says, I go back to her, I grab her and I shake her and try to get her to talk. That's on June the 13th of 1990 Steve told Dr. Reynolds, the psychologist who you heard today who you've heard twice in this particular case, that he shook Sandra twice. And that's two days after Sandra's death.

And he did tell Mr. Otte that he shook her and Otte everywhere he went that night. He told him he went to Dillards, he told him he went to the Sonic, the he told him he went to the church before he went to the Sonic. And you remember Mr. Otte was on the stand and I said, Mr. Otte, you can verify everything that Steve Allen told you that night, can't you, and his response, yes. Steve Allen has not hid one thing other than the hammer in this particular case.

And let's talk about that. Let's talk about hiding the hammer. Counsel told you, he said, I listened stuff about brief reactive psychosis, and he said, I don’t remember anything about impairment of memory. Remember the transparency that Dr. Reynolds put up. I'll bring it to you. And look at number five, ladies and gentlemen. Impairment in recent memory.

And let's talk about the hammer. Let's talk about bizarre activity, which is one of the essential features of brief reactive psychosis. You go into a house and you hid something that's not the murder weapon. And we know that from Dr. Baden, and we know that from Peter Barnett and we know it from Terry Laber and I think we will all know that at some point. The hammer is not the murder weapon.

Peter Barnett pulled the head of that hammer off, but before he ever did that Terry Laber -- remember Mr. Laber? He came here on blood spatter. And I never asked him to even do that with the hammer and he did that of his own accord and he told you that. He did that because he wanted to know before he ever came and testified.

He pulled a nail out and there's no blood. And I asked him what the significance of that was and he said if the hammer were the murder weapon there would be blood in those cracks, there would blood under the head of that hammer.

And you'll have this back in the room with you, back in the jury room. And you can look down in there, and you saw the photographs of what happens to a hammer if it's actually bloody. There's cracks, there's crevices. And Mr. Barnett, Peter, went ahead and pulled the head of f this hammer. There's no blood, there's no glass.

And both those men -- do we really think that Terry Laber, who teaches at Quantico, Virginia, the F.B.I. academy, who is establishing their DNA analysis program for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, do you think Terry Laber is going to sacrifice his integrity for any of us? Any of us. I'll let you answer.

But Steve Allen hid something out of panic that's not the murder weapon. And he left a bloody footprint trail as he did it. But I want to submit to you, one other very important telltale thing that shows that Steve Allen was suffering from brief reactive psychosis.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you killed your wife, if you walk around, if you had 30 minutes, would you walk around in those clothes? Would you go hid the hammer and then wear the very clothes that the state wants you to believe was caused by other than shaking? Think about that. Think about that. They want you to believe that he could hide the hammer and he could set this up and then walk around in the very clothes.

I submit to you -- at the scene, do you remember the testimony of Grayson. Steve was babbling. That every time he looked at Sandra he got upset and started crying.

And you remember Mr. Davis. In his report he said the defendant, Steve, appeared very shaken and when he talked to him he was in a daze.

Now you want to question what Steve did. That's your prerogative and that's your right and you should, but when you hold it up and when you look at it, ladies and gentlemen, ask yourselves, none of us knows what might happen to us in a similar type situation.

And you remember the testimony of Dr. Reynolds, the psychologist. He said people go through psychological trauma in those kind of situations. And that's true. And you remember Steve ran to Sandra in a pool of blood and he held her. He doesn't know how long. He doesn't know how long he stood in the -- just in the area of the -- as you start into the family room. He doesn't know how long he stood there after he hit the counter with the hammer, and he doesn't know how long he stood there looking at the china cabinet before he went up into the attic, and he doesn't know how long he was in the attic, and he doesn't know how long it was before he came back down, and he doesn't know how long it was before he went over and called 911.

I submit to you that the very testimony that we have from the State of Oklahoma by and through the officers testimony, by and through the testimony of Steve at the emergency room. One minute he's crying and the next minutes he's straight-faced. The next minute he says something, the next minute nobody gets a response. And you heard Dr. Reynolds look at these particular things.

I'm sorry that that happened to Steve because it's something that Steve's got to live with and he is living with it. But, ladies and gentlemen, it's something that happens and it happened in this particular case. We have the expert testimony. You have the facts that show you that. You have something hid that's not a murder weapon, you have something done that's illogical. And you heard Dr. Reynolds tell you that what happens in that instance is you revert back to your instincts, and logic goes out the window. And, yes, it happened in this case. Very unfortunately, but it happened.

Let's talk for a moment, ladies and gentlemen, about a couple of things that went on that particular night. We know that when law enforcement arrived there at that particular scene that Officer Grayson was placed in charge of the scene. And Mr. Gluba came here and he talked with you about some of those things.

We know from the crime scene photographs that there was never enough thought given to what Steve told them with regard to the direction that they even included that particular area of the yard in the crime scene tape off. And by that particular area I mean the northeast corner.

And you remember Mr. Davis. He was on the stand and this is the photograph I handed him, and you remember the long pause. I said, should that have been included, Mr. Davis, and he said, well, yes, it should have.

Mr. Davis admits that particular things which he saw which he identified as fingerprints on those particular leaves from 20 years on the police force, didn't stay there very long, but it's never been brought to you, ladies and gentlemen.

And I submit to you -- I can't tell you with certainty as I stand here what that would have shown, but I have some ideas. I have some good ideas. I have some good ideas it might match this contact lense in some way.

And, ladies and gentlemen, we know about trace evidence; and you remember my questions with regard to vacuuming the carpet. And my questioning of Mr. Franchini about you can pick up what's on a belt, you can pick up what comes from a ring, you can pick up what may come out of a watch. That was never done.

Now, as we look at the crime scene video, and you'll have that; and, ladies and gentlemen, the court will tell you if you want to see any of those videos and look at them, if you want to study them, a video transmitter and monitor will be made available to you.

As we look at the crime scene video I think I know why. It was like a herd in there coming and going and walking. And, ladies and gentlemen, you heard Terry Laber come in here, and I will never forget what Terry Laber said, Mr. Laber. Remember when I asked him, I said, how do you handle a crime scene. Now, this is the man that teaches at the F.B.I. academy. This is the man that is asked to lecture around the country and is a very, very humble sort of a guy.

He says, we ask as soon as we get the call it be sealed and nobody allowed in. And that is what you do, ladies and gentlemen, to a homicide scene. You don't allow people, as that crime scene video shows, to go walking back and forth and people picking up and moving things, because you, ladies and gentlemen, have had an experience that very few people in this world have an opportunity to have, and that is that you have sat through a lecture, if you want to call it that, on what's done at a crime scene and what should be done at a crime scene. So you now know. You now know how it should be handled.

And what is important about that from Steve's standpoint? Well, we have the contact. There's one other thing I want to talk to you about the contact on that. I wrote this date down right here. When Dr. Burch was testifying, I said, what's the first date that the contact was brought to you for you to look at, and he said, May 17th, 1991.

This case happened June the 11th, 1990, and the State of Oklahoma brings it to Dr. Burch almost a year later. You know why? Because we requested it. We requested the contact lense. And it had never been looked at, evidently never been given serious enough consideration by anybody from law enforcement to look at.

And you heard Mr. Gluba tell you tunnel vision. Good gracious. Good gracious in this particular case.

And he told you, you go back to the scene, and you get any information that you may not have the murder weapon, you look, you search the dumpsters in the area. I heard no testimony that that was done. Absolutely none.

And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, counsel makes some light of the fact that Mr. Gluba says the telephone should have been printed, that someone called from their own house. They may well have called from the Allen house. They may well have called inquiring when Steve Allen would return. And because -- you remember the nature of the conversation with Theresa Miller and the caller, when she talked to Sandra, the caller -- when that male voice talked to Sandra? You know, Theresa gets of f the phone and she -- and that's when Sandra says to her, that was a really weird call. And Theresa says it was a raspy voice.

And, you know, Theresa Miller -- I want to tell you a telltale thing. Theresa Miller admitted, when we called her, she said the next day she called her supervisor, and she said, I called the supervisor because I thought that call might have been somebody who was in the house.

And I pause and let's think about that. No mention that she had any thought of Steve. She tells you she can't identify the voice. And, ladies and gentlemen, don't you think Sandra Allen could identify her own husband after being married for 10 years and talking to him five minutes.

But at any rate, Mr. Gluba tells you we should print that telephone because that person may well have been in the house and made that call because they wanted to know where Steve was and when he'd be back.

But I agree, from the standpoint of Mr. Gluba, he has no contrary information to that, but ladies and gentlemen, it's something that should have been done. How do we know? Just like this contact lense.

And, ladies and gentlemen, the first people to establish the correct reading of this contact lense sat on the far side of the room, not the near side of the room. A year later. Nearly a year later when we were able to get the contact lense produced to us.

Let's talk, ladies and gentlemen, for just a minute, and I'm glad that, you know, the State of Oklahoma -- I guess I'm glad that they want to be proud of some of the testimony that they have in this particular case, because I want to read to you one instruction. One instruction in this particular case, and that's Instruction No. 20, and it says:

"You are instructed that evidence has been presented that on some prior occasion Robert Herring and Tom Bevel made statements inconsistent with their testimony in this case. This evidence is called impeachment evidence, and is offered to show that Robert Herring and Tom Bevel's testimony are not believable or truthful."

You can search through all these instructions and you won't find the name of any defense witnesses that have an instruction like that next to them. And I ask you to read that and I ask you to take that into consideration in your deliberations, ladies and gentlemen. And these instructions come from the Court.

And the state wants to hold up to you Mr. Pottroff. And I recall the testimony of Mr. Pottroff. Mr. Pottroff says I'm there at midnight and the grass is wet, and that's the reason there's no footprints in the yard. And that's the reason we brought Mr. Lee. Yes, we paid some money to have Mr. Lee here, but Mr. Lee told you it's atmospherically and meteorologically 99.9 percent impossible for there to be dew.

Now, counsel is asking you to believe that a garden hose by a two year old wet the grass, the entire yard. I have heard of reaching, but that's a reach and a jump.

And, ladies and gentlemen, if they're so sure of their case, if they're so sure of where they're at, then why are we fudging? Because there was no dew that night. Mr. Davis tells you he walked around outside; that he walked around and he ever even got damp. He walked through the fields and he comes back in and yet we have someone who tells us the reason there's no footprints is because the grass is wet.

I want to visit with you about the item in this particular case of hair on the towels. And I think the state is probably going to get up and make some point of that. We know what Steve had Sandra that night and we know that he picked her up and he shook her. And we know that he took the hammer with the towels and we know that he put that in the attic. Of course there's going to be hair on his hands and of course there's going to be hair on the towels. And we're not going to submit to you there shouldn't be or wouldn't be because of what happened. And there would be quite a bit of hair on Steve's hands that he would wipe off and put up there, as he wiped off the hammer.

Now, I want to talk to you about Steve Allen for just a minute. I want to put something up here that I think is very important in this particular case. We know what Steve Allen was at Dillards at 8:33, and that's by a receipt in this particular case, and you'll be able to dig through there and find a receipt. It's an exhibit, a defendant's exhibit.

And we know that based upon the time that Steve drove and where he went, the time that he leaves from Dillards and the time that it takes him to get to the church, it's 4.6 miles or basically 12 minutes.

And Steve told you that he left Dillards at about 8:40 to 8:45 by the time he talked to Sandra and the time he left there, and that he got to the church and he doesn't know the exact time, but he remembers he told Mr. Otte that he left the church at 9:05 because he remembered looking at the clock in the car.

Look at the time, ladies and gentlemen. That's what he told Mr. Otte. He gets there and he leaves at 8:40. He gets there very near that particular time.

And how do we know he's at the church? You remember the receipt, the deposit slips. I say receipts. It should be deposit slips, that were picked up at the church that were introduced in this case through Steve that he picked up that particular night, Monday night, and you can look at those deposit slips. They were deposited earlier that day by the secretary. We know he was at the church.

And from the church he then goes to the Sonic, and the Sonic receipt was 9:13 p.m., and it's uncontroverted. That's the Sonic receipt that was found in Steve's car; that Steve bought three drinks and has three drinks that match exactly what the testimony is in this case. He was taking a cherry limeade to Sandra, had a grape slushy for little [boy], and he had a medium Pepsi himself.

You look at the receipts and you examine the receipts, ladies and gentlemen. You'll have an opportunity to do that. And he leaves from there and then he goes from there to Dillards.

And there's a very important thing in this particular case. Mark Spurgeon. When Steve talked with Mr. Otte that night, or the next morning I should say, at six o'clock a.m., he told Mr. Otte, I saw Mark at Dillards.

Now, Steve -- there's no way he could have checked what Mark's schedule was because at six o'clock in the morning on June the 12th there's no way Steve could have known when Mark Spurgeon was getting off work. But we know from the receipt that Mark Spurgeon got off at 9:24. And remember Mark's testimony that it took him a minute or two to walk out to his car. So let's give him 9:25. So we know that Steve is driving by Dillards looking for Sandra's car at 9:25, and we know the drive time is about 4.50 minutes or 5 minutes. So Steve's back at that house at 9:30 to 9:31.

But the important thing is that Steve's testimony that night when he was interviewed by Mr. Otte is exactly what it's been in this courtroom, and it's been the same ever since. And it matches exactly and is documented on this particular board where Steve was when and what he did.

And there is absolutely no way that Steve Allen could fabricate this particular situation. There's no way he can fabricate seeing Mark Spurgeon, because he had no way of knowing what time Mark was getting off. Absolutely no way. And he told Mr. Otte he thought he got to the house about 9:25. Well, at six o’ clock in the morning on the 12th that's pretty good when you know he got there at about 9:30 to 9:31.

You know, there's a lot of testimony in this particular case that some people want to try to say they saw Steve driving by the house. And remember some of the state's witnesses said they saw him driving by the house after nine o'clock. Substantially after nine o'clock. Well, how could he? He's at Sonic at 9:13, and we know he sees Mark at 9:24 or 9:25 or 9:26, and we know what the drive time is between Sonic and Dillards. There's absolutely no way. And I submit to you there are some people out there who are very confused about what they saw.

And let me talk to you for a minute about Mr. Coffman. The state holds Mr. Coffman up to you and they say to you Mr. Coffman sees Steve at the house or wants you to believe that he says he saw him at nine o'clock.

And you remember Mr. Nowotny who was sitting across the way. We called him, the defense called Mr. Nowotny, and he says he was there from 8:45 to 9:15 and was looking straight into the driveway of Steve, and he says, if Steve had driven in there I would have known that. He says, no, I didn't see Steve there.. Of course he didn't.

Mr. Nowotny says Steve came by going from south to north just before nine o'clock, and in his opinion Steve was shading his eyes from the sun.

And Mr. Coffman, which the prosecution wants to hold up to you -- you remember the testimony of Daniel Eastman, the little boy on the bike. Daniel was riding around at nine o'clock, and he says there were no cars there, the 17-year old boy who was on the way over. He says there's no cars there at nine o'clock. And counsel over here on cross-examination asked Daniel Eastman, said did you see Mr. Coffman, and he said, oh, yeah, he waved at me. And Mr. Coffman's testimony was in this case I had the impression that I might of seen Steve there.

MR. CORGAN: Now, Judge, that's not the testimony. I'd ask that counsel --

THE COURT: It will be up to the jury to make that decision as they recall it.

MR. CARLSON: Ladies and gentlemen, Daniel Eastman saw no car there at nine o'clock. Mr. Nowotny across the street saw no car there at nine o'clock, and ladies and gentlemen, that's because Steve Allen wasn't there at nine o'clock.

And also Daniel Eastman tells you as he came back from Allen Coffman's house, as he rode back he saw Sandra's green car there and Steve's car was not there. You'll recall that testimony. It's very important in this particular case.

I want to submit to you that in this particular case Steve Allen is not on trial for having an affair. Steve Allen is not on trial for the mistake he made with Debbe Aubrey. Steve Allen is not on trial for that particular mistake in his life.

There are a couple of instances in this particular case that I want to talk to you about. I heard testimony for days about a screen door from the State of Oklahoma. And I heard testimony about how these officers were hanging on this screen door and couldn't pull it open.

Remember Blair Gluba. He's the first one. He said I was there and I was there and I reached up and just jerked it open And you remember the cross-examination of Mr. Gardella. He did admit on cross-examination that it's a door that you can pull open.

But look at the video tapes, ladies and gentlemen, made by Jerry Horton, who use to be head of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol who's now retired. The video tape of that particular door. And you saw Mr. Horton and you saw him walk up there and you saw him reach out, check it and make sure it's locked, and give it a pull, and it pops open. Do they want us to believe that nobody can get in that screen door?

And I heard a lot of testimony about the fact that this glass was in the wrong place, that the glass couldn't get up there on the bricks behind the door. And there's also a video tape here which if you want to view it you certainly have that opportunity. That where the glass -- you remember we video taped it and performed the experiment that where the glass, what it does is it hits that carpet and rebounds back up there. And that accounts for glass being back where it was.

Ladies and gentlemen, those things have been proven to you as to how that happened, and if they want to pick at that because the piece of carpet isn't nailed down around the edge out here well, the glass doesn't hit out here at the edge, it hits right here where you lay the carpet down on the pad. And it's the same carpet out of the same room laid in front of the same door and it's broken and rebounds back up there. It doesn't fit from the standpoint of what they're saying.

And ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you in this particular case that we have called witnesses who have established, have established that Steve Allen didn't commit this particular act.

And let's go back to Theresa Miller just a minute. You know when Steve came to Dillards and Theresa walked up and Steve and Sandra were standing there, remember what Theresa Miller said? Sandra, did you tell the phone call.

Well, let's be reasonable, ladies and gentlemen. At that point in time if Theresa Miller had any idea that she had the foggiest idea or thought it might be Steve, would she say, Sandra, did you tell Steve about the call?

You remember what Sandra told Steve? The caller sounded retarded. He was asking where you were. He said he went to school with you. I told him I went to school with Steve and that I would know most of anybody that went to school with Steve. The guy give some name. Sandra says she doesn't know that particular person and the person abruptly hangs up.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, down through this particular case I have listened to what the state has argued. I have listened for more than a year now to what the state has asked you to believe. And I remember the testimony at some point, they said, ladies and gentlemen, we have a K-Mart recorder. That came out in this particular case.

Well, I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. I am really sorry that they can spend the money for Tom Bevel who can come from Oklahoma City at the drop of a hat and ask to be compensated, but yet he can take the stand and he can't remember what his degrees are in unless he's in Mississippi or unless he's in Oklahoma. And you know why it is, ladies and gentlemen? Do you know why his degrees change whether he's in Mississippi or Oklahoma? It depends on what kind of jury he wants to try to impress.

And I'm sorry, but if you're a man of those supposed credentials you don't forget what your degrees are in. You don't forget that. When you testify under oath in Mississippi that you have a degree in Sociology and psychology and you testify in Oklahoma that your undergraduate degree under oath is in political science, that's the reason you get these kind of instructions about Mr. Bevel.

But I am sorry that they can get Mr. Bevel here but that they can't and don't feel the need to enhance those phone calls and that 911 call so that we can hear them.

And, yes, we did that and, yes, I'm glad we did it, because you, ladies and gentlemen, heard the 911 call and you heard Steve on the 911 call and you heard Steve breathing and you heard him pleading. And you heard Steve, as he talked to Mr. Gardella. And you heard him in the throw of anxiety and in the throws of upset emotional state in both instances. And if you want to listen to those tapes again the court will tell you that can be done. But, yes, we brought you Barry Kreuger and we are proud that we did.

I want to talk to you for a moment in this particular case about Dr. Shuy. Dr. Shuy -- and I'll tell you the important thing. Dr. Shuy is a linguist. We know that. Dr. Shuy, it's true, he's a world renowned linguist. And Dr. Shuy told you that he analyzed that tape and that Steve Allen was in distress on the 911 call and that Steve Allen, when he talked to Officer Gardella, was upset. You can hear it yourself and you can look at the transcripts, and you'll have a chance to look at those and I hope that you will.

With regard, in this particular case, to Mr. Allen's, Steve Allen's character. Let's look at some of the people that testified on behalf of Steve. Brian McIntosh. Brian McIntosh was with the U.S. Marshall's Office. He was a Bartlesville police officer, and he's known Steve for seven years.

And you got Harold Wootton, who works at Phillips Petroleum Company. And you've got Noel Tolbert. And Mr. Tolbert is in management over at Phillips. He's known Steve for years. And you've got Larry Reed that has a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Rice. And you've got people like Took Cramer who's an accountant.

And do you think those people who are professional people, and that doesn't really mean anything except that they have to think about it before they come and testify just like anybody has to think about it before they come and testify whether you work at this location or that location. But those people come in here and they tell you about Steve Allen. They tell you he's honest and he's truthful and he's non-violent.

Look at the psychological testing, and it's absolutely irrefutable. It's not something that's subject to interpretation. It's objective analysis that is submitted and evaluated based upon thousands and thousands of people.

Do you really think that if Steve Allen had in any way been involved in this particular instance, that on June the 13th, 1990, two days later, there wouldn't be some showing through a battery of testing? Ask yourselves that. You're wise people. You're smart people. You've lived through a lot, you have sons and daughters, and you have experienced a lot in your own lives. Think about that.

Remember we had testimony in this case that at the scene Gene Herren, Mike Gann, firemen that came in here and told you -- Mr. Gann, the testimony was very short. What did you see at the scene, Mike? Steve was upset and genuinely concerned about his wife. And that's true. At certain points Steve was very concerned about his wife and at certain points he was in a daze. You've got the gamut of emotions. You've got that gamut of emotions that Dr. Reynolds told you about. The swing from one to the next.

Bart Epstein and Terry Laber. And I will never forget in this courtroom right here when Bart Epstein put on the shirt and stood up over here and came around and stood in front of you, ladies and gentlemen, and we had heard Mr. Perkins talk to you about how these particular stains were on the back of the shirt. And you remember I laid that shirt right here and I put my hands on it and I said, Mr. Perkins, show me what you talk about as cast off. And he said, well, it's -- I said, you mean this stuff on the back, and he said, yeah, the stuff on the back.

Ladies and gentlemen, when Bart Epstein put that shirt on you saw what happened. What's on the back as you lay it down, due to the filling of your body and curves of your body, becomes on the side and in the front. Good gracious. Merciful heavens. And when it's in the front right there, it's not cast of f. It's called a shaking. It's in the front right here. Remember that.

And, you know, I asked Mr. Bevel up here on the stand, I said, you would criticize Terry Laber and Bart Epstein if they hadn't preformed any experiments, wouldn't you, and he said, most definitely. Where are Doug Perkins experiments to verify what he's trying to tell you? And he's a pupil Mr. Perkins is a pupil of Mr. Bevel. He told you that.

And Bart Epstein and Terry Laber meticulously told you why that blood spatter is totally inconsistent and not caused by any type of blunt trauma impact. They told you how the directionality, how it comes down, you have both hands forward, and how that ones that are on the back are caused by the raining down as you shake and blood comes up.

Now, Mr. Bevel's up here and he wants to talk to you about one spot he finds on the front that's down and make a big deal out of that. And you remember what happened when I stuck that piece of tape on this mannequin over here and you tilt the mannequin? It's precisely consistent with having shook, because it's then traveling this direction. Not downward like Mr. Bevel want's to try to sell to you.

And I ask you again to examine those people's qualifications and their credibility. I'll bet you Terry Laber and Bart Epstein know what they're degrees are in, and I'll bet they've never testified any differently.

And Mr. Bevel is brought into this courtroom to criticize and to pick at the experiments. And I'm not going to stand here and tell you that those experiments are exactly like a human head, but I'm going to tell you, and there's some intelligent people on this jury with scientific backgrounds, that experiments are attempts to show and confirm and verify. And that was done in this case.

But the state hasn't given you one experiment. They haven't given you anything to verify. They just get up and talk at raw rank statements.

And you noticed one interesting thing with Mr. Bevel in this particular case. He never even talked about cast off. And you remember Mr. Perkins talked about how all these were cast off. Remember Bart Epstein's explanation of what a cast off stain looks like, how you have that pattern. And I wonder why Mr. Bevel didn't address that. I wonder why Mr. Bevel didn't address Mr. Perkins' statement of cast off. And the reason that he did this -- I think even Mr. Bevel will admit that''s a terrible problem from their opinion, their point of view.

Ladies and gentlemen, it you're right, you can look at that shirt, and I ask you to look at that shirt. And you saw the demonstrations and shaking in this particular case, and use your common sense, that some of you men on the jury, I will submit to you very well could create that same pattern on your shirt if you shake.

And I hold those experts up to you, Mr. Laber and Mr. Epstein. They spent an entire day at the crime scene. You saw the way that graphed the shirt, you saw the way they actually projected where the stain -- where the particular point from which tthe blood had to come from, and you heard their testimony and you heard what they have done in this particular case.

And they took the stand and they said based upon the stain size, based upon the density, based upon the directionality and based upon the angle in this particular case, yes, using a protractor like Mr. Bevel wanted them to do, only he didn't know that and wasn't told that, that it is totally inconsistent with impact spatter and is totally consistent with what Steve said he did at the scene.

I will not apologize for bringing them to you. I think Steve is worth it. I think Steve is worth my very best and then some. And that's what we've tried to do. His life is here in this courtroom, and if I could have gotten better than Terry Laber and Bart Epstein I would have done it, but I couldn't because they are two of the best, the very best, and they do it all over this country.

Now, the State of Oklahoma, in this particular case, wants to talk to you about the many experts that we brought. Ladies and gentlemen, there's only one way, when you don't have the crime scene, when you don't have the crime scene, when the state of Oklahoma has it, when they can take away what they want to take -- and you heard Blair Gluba. I handed him those particular exhibits. I said, Blair, could you and I reconstruct the crime scene from these exhibits. He said, absolutely not.

And ladies and gentlemen, when we don't have the crime scene and we have a man who didn't commit an act, then there's a higher calling, there's a higher calling than to do it all out. You do it all out and then another step.

And you do that with every bit of energy that you have, and you do that with the Epsteins and the Labers and the Badens and the two Reynolds and those kind of people.

And I think that's what you ladies and gentlemen expect and I think that's what you would want. And I think that's what America is all about, and I'm proud of the jury system and I'm proud that we have you. And I'm proud that you're the law, and I'm confident in your 12 men and women.

And I want to ask the State some questions. How does the State of Oklahoma explain three or four contact lenses in this case; and how does the State of Oklahoma explain the wrong power of the contact lenses in this particular case; and how do they explain the fact that the expert opinions of Dr. Baden and Peter Barnett and Terri Laber, that there's no way this hammer is the murder weapon. How do they explain that Terri Lippert says Steve is cool, calm and collected on the 911 call and Dr. Shuy says he's not, and you ladies and gentlemen heard the 911 call.

How do they explain Mr. Pottroff saying that the grass was wet at twelve a.m. and he would have seen footprints when we call Mr. Lee, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, or he wasn't with the National Weather Service, a consultant out at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and he says it's an atmospheric impossibility with a 99.9 percent probability.

And, ladies and gentlemen, why does Lynette Lee, who testified in this particular case, not even know the O.S.B.I. procedure on glass examination?

And, ladies and gentlemen, why does Lynette Lee say in one place where she's under oath that she looked at the hammer under a microscope and there is no glass and issues a report of no glass, and then a year later says under oath that she didn't look at the handle of the hammer for glass under a microscope.

Why does Lynette Lee say, under cross-examination, that she doesn't know the procedure for examining glass in the O.S.B.I. and she's been there seven years?

And ask the State of Oklahoma to explain to you if Steve broke out the glass in the door then where are the bloody footprints on the carpet by the door, because we know he left bloody footprints everywhere else. If Steve opened the door, because he left blood on the phone, then why isn't there blood on the door where he opened the door?

And why did Mr. Bevel say, when he's in Mississippi, that he has an undergraduate degree in psychology and sociology and when he's in Bartlesville, Oklahoma he says he has an undergraduate degree in police science? Why does he say one thing under oath in Mississippi and another in Oklahoma?

And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask the State of Oklahoma to explain to you how that hammer made those linear marks on Sandra Allen. And ask the State of Oklahoma to tell you what the motive is in this case, and ask the State of Oklahoma why we, the defense, had to pull off the head of the hammer and why we're the first ones that did it to check for blood.

And do you doubt that we want to know what the truth is? Why else would we do it. Why did we have to pull the nail out of the head of the hammer and determine there was no blood in the head before the head was ever removed?

And why does Mr. Herring say one thing in court when he earlier said something else on tape to both our investigator and to me when I presented him with the transcript? And why does Mr. Eastman say one thing here in court. You remember Mr. Eastman. He was late in their case. He took the stand. Why does Mr. Eastman say one thing here, but he admits in March when he was talking with Mr. Buchanan he said something else?

And you ask the State of Oklahoma why they didn't take the money that they paid Mr. Bevel and clean these recordings and present them to you, because after all, ladies and gentlemen, there 45 a life -- a man's life at stake here.

And, you know, so the State of Oklahoma won't forget these questions, I'm going to hand him a copy of them. And you ask him to answer those things for you, to talk with you about those things.

Because, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in this particular case there was somebody in the house that night and somebody with a contact lense of a 5.5 magnitude. And I wished we could read those pieces. But can there be any doubt, based upon the people who have testified about the power of that contact lense, that it's not Sandra Allen's prescription, and if it had if she had been even trying to wear that she would have been not been able to see for one single minute close up, to sew, to read. We know it's not her contact lense.

And, ladies and gentlemen, you ask evaluate this case. How do I look at this case. I, as somebody on a first time on a jury to stand look at the case and know what to do.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you hold the State of Oklahoma's case up it's like a glass of water. You hold it up to the light and it sparkles, it's clear. That's one thing. But if you look at their case and you have a contact lense that's not Sandra Allen's prescription; and you have Steve Allen who has -- you can verify everywhere he went; and you have something being hid that's not the murder weapon; and you have expert testimony that Steve Allen has no pathological finding that he can commit this crime, and two days later he's perfectly normal and always was normal; and you have the evidence that the crime scene was walked over; and you have the evidence that in this particular case that Steve loved Sandra; that he's being tried in this courtroom for having an affair -- and we don't submit to you that having an affair is right. It's wrong. But that doesn't mean you kill your wife. And if you have that evidence plus the multitude of other items in this particular case that point directly away from Steve, the character witnesses. Look at his job performance and look at what he's done. And ladies and gentlemen, you have the phone call at Dillards and you have Sandra Allen looking forward to being excited to spending her weekend with Steve. Now hold it up, ladies and gentlemen, and look at it. And I submit to you that I have confidence in you and I have confidence in our system.

I want to tell you a little story. It's about a naughty little boy who, when he would approach people, he'd hold a bird in his hands. He'd hold out his hands and he'd say, ma ' am or sir, is the bird alive or dead. And if they would say the bird is alive he'd simply squeeze it and crush it and open his hands and it would be dead. If you said the bird was dead he'd simply open his hands and the bird would fly away. Until one day he approached a wise old man. And he held out his hands and he said, sir, is the bird alive or dead. And the wise old man looked down at him and he said, son, his life is in your hands.

Ladies and gentlemen, Steve Allen's life is in your hands, and as you go back in the jury room and deliberate consider the evidence that establishes what Steve Allen has told you. You can go down each particular item and you can see that it's verifiable and that it's true.

And ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Steve and on behalf of his family, I thank you for your attention and I thank you for being here for this particular trial. Thank you.

The information contained on this pages was taken from the District Court in and for Washington County, State of Oklahoma, Transcript of Jury Trial Proceedings (Volume V), Held on August 6th, 9th, and 12th,  pages 162 - 214.

lh1998-99, 2000