State's Closing Argument

Craig D. Corgan, District Attorney, Washington County Courthouse, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, 74003, appears on behalf of the State of Oklahoma.

MR. CORGAN: "Your Honor, Mr. Carlson, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Allen, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

First of all, let me thank you for your patience, for your attention, for your careful consideration. It's been a long trial, it's been a difficult trial. Both sides have presented you now with the case.

My estimation we've been here 19 days now. Five days in selecting you, 14 days of testimony. You've heard from some 72 witnesses and we have received in excess of 130 exhibits.

As Judge Lanning has told you, this is the portion of the trial that's know as the closing argument. It's the time when the attorneys have an opportunity to visit with you about the evidence from their perspective.

Again, let me remind you that nothing I say, nothing Mr. Carlson says, is evidence in the case. Evidence is what you've heard and what you have and any agreements that we might have entered into.

Since I do have, as the state's representative, the burden of proof, I'll have an opportunity to visit with you now, Mr. Carlson will speak with you, and then I will finally close.

What I'd like to do, at this time, is discuss some of the evidence with you, and in doing that I'll rely on my memory, on my notes. As I do that, if you received it differently, then you apply it as you remember it.

Let me ask you to don one other thing. Obviously after 14 days, 72 witnesses, there's no way that I can or you would want me to, I think, cover everything. So I will attempt to hit various points in looking at the evidence, looking at the proof, but then you include and you add, certainly, the things that you found as you've listened to and examined the case.

Let's look now, for a moment, at the evidence that the state of Oklahoma has presented to you in proving that this defendant, Stephen Allen, murdered his wife, Sandra Jo Allen.

Before I do that, let me just call your attention to three instructions. Obviously all the instructions are important in this case, but there are three instructions that I hope you'll keep in mind as we argue today.

That first instruction is that instruction about circumstantial evidence. And the court has told you that you can consider circumstantial evidence, and he also says something very important. All of the facts and circumstances taken together must be inconsistent with what? Any reasonable theory or conclusion of a defendant's innocence. And I hope you'll remember that and you'll think about that reasonable theory as we discuss the law, as we discuss the evidence in this case.

The Court has also told you that you may consider circumstantial evidence just as you would direct evidence; that the law makes no distinction between the two.

And then finally, and so importantly, instruction on witnesses and particularly expert witnesses. You are not required, because someone has that label as an expert witness, to surrender your judgment. You are to consider that witness as you would any other witness as you determine the facts, the credibility and the issues in this case.

So in proving the case what did the state do? Well, you recall the first witness you heard from was Terri Lippert. That's how law enforcement first became aware that something had happened to Sandra Allen.

And what did Ms. Lippert tell you? She said she received a call at ten o'clock p.m.' that it came in on 911, and since she did not have the enhanced system all she had was a phone number.

And what did she tell you? She said Stephen Allen was calm, he was responsive, he answered every question the first time she asked him.

You recall we played that tape and you got to listen to it, and you saw the transcripts, and you'll recall how he was able to give his phone number, how he was able to tell her everything he asked. How, in fact, when the ambulance people were having a hard time finding where to go and were talking about it in the background Stephen Allen was able to respond, was able to tell them, no, it's two blocks off Nowata Road, something like that.

Now, you need to look at that word calm, what Miss Lippert told you about that, in the context, in the perspective of Miss Lippert. And what is her perspective? She's a police dispatcher and it's her job to take these calls daily, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of these calls during the course of her work. And what did she say? This man was different. She said, in past people will hang up on me, people won't give me a phone number, people won't tell me their name. But Stephen Allen could do all of that. She said, there was something wrong.

Now, certainly Miss Lippert does not have any degrees in linguistics, can't tell us a whole lot about supersegmental language and probably can't go into a whole lot about structures of how we write reports and do things like that. But what can she tell us based on her experience and her knowledge, and that's how people react under stress. What happens in those situations and what she observed at that time.

And it's also interesting that if, and we'll talk about this later, if the defendant was afflicted with this malady called brief reactive psychosis, how he was able to function so well at that time with Miss Lippert as she received that crucial, crucial information from him.

You'll recall our next witness was Darrell Grayson. Officer Grayson, the first officer on the scene. What did he tell you? Well, he said I observed the defendant. He was covered in blood, he was sweating badly.

He also tells you and his testimony was he heard this defendant say to Officer Davis, that he saw the person, the person no one else saw, where? In the living room. In the living room.

And I asked Officer Grayson bout that. I said, Officer, you used the word "saw". Is that what he said? He said, yes, sir, he said that. He also said that he couldn't get any description from Mr. Allen.

Now, we'll know later when Dr. Shuy gets here that he had a problem. He had a problem because Officer Grayson didn't put the word "saw" in his report. But you also know and you also recall that when we talked to Mr. Gluba he finally begrudgingly admitted officers know a lot more than they sometimes put in their report. So think about that and consider that as you look at the testimony of Officer Grayson.

And then we presented Lieutenant Gus Davis, and what did he tell you? Well, that he was the number one officer as far as patrol at that time, that when he got there what did he do? He observed the defendant sweating. How did he observe that? He put his arm around the defendant.

Now, again, Dr. Shuy says, that's strange. You see sweat, you don't feel it. Well, I don't know about that. Maybe Dr. Shuy has never played basketball. I guarantee you when I have and I've run into those sweaty bodies you feel it and you feel it. And that's what Officer Davis felt. But yet the suggestion is because we don't put the language in the way the linguist wants it there's something wrong and he doesn't know what he saw and he doesn't know what he observed.

What did Officer Davis also tell us? The so-called escape route, the door, was what? Locked from the inside. And what did Gus Davis tell you about that? He said, well, I backhanded that latch to check it. I said, why did you do that, officer? He said, well, I didn't want to do anything to mess it up as far as prints. Then what did he tell you he did later on? He went outside, he tugged on the door, and it would not open.

Do you recall Officer Davis telling you about his search outside; that he found nothing to suggest any intruder? He found nothing in the patio area, he found nothing in the yard area except some plants, and he told you about those. He told you about the fence. Of course, we know later on how that could have happened and what could have come in regard to that fence and those plants.

What else did he tell you? Remember how the officers were there, how they went through the fields and they went through the neighborhood attempting to find something, find someone. And what did they find? Nothing. Nothing.

Do you recall Officer Davis's testimony that as he went out into that tall grass what happened to it? It went down, and when did it go down? Only when he walked on it. He said, I could find no sign of anyone there. I could find no sign of anyone going through that route, and he said, you know, the only direction I had as far as an intruder, a perpetrator going, went towards the fence. And what happened when I got there? Well, the dog almost took me apart. So, again, think about that as you consider his testimony.

What else did he tell you? He said, I saw one set, one set of bloody footprints. He said, sure, there were multiple prints, but it was the same print, and that print went to the shoes of Stephen Allen.

And he said, the defendant was too calm. There was something wrong. Too calm with the way he reacted to his wife being there, her head beaten in, lying in her own blood.

Then you'll recall after Officer Davis we presented the testimony of Theresa Miller. Well, we presented that for two reasons. One, Ms. Miller told you, and she had no question, she had no doubt in her mind that Sandra Allen didn't have any glasses on that night. She didn't wear glasses to work. And we know, and we'll talk about this later, if she didn't wear her glasses what did she have on? Well, obviously she had on her contacts. And why do we know that? Well, from what we find out about the contacts later on and what we know abut Sandra Allen's vision, that if she wasn't wearing glasses she was going to have contacts on or she wouldn't function, she wouldn't drive, she wouldn't be able to work.

Then Ms. Miller told us something else. Something that we don't really need time records for, something that we don't need Mark Spurgeon for. What did she tell you? She said, well, I got home that night at 9:28 and Sandra Allen was ahead of me and turned off left there at Lincoln Road going to her home. So we know from that Sandra Allen got home that evening somewhere between 9:25 and 9:30.

Then you'll recall, after Mrs. Miller, we presented the testimony of numerous neighbors. And I'm sure as we did that it got a little tedious for you and you were wondering why in the world did we hear neighbor after neighbor after neighbor. But there was a purpose for that, and that is and that was to show you what the neighborhood was really like that night, the neighborhood that everyone else saw, the neighborhood that everyone else knew except for Stephen Allen.

You'll recall, in looking at that , we first presented the testimony of Irving Coffman. And as you recall, Mr. Coffman drew the map for us, he showed us where the various people lived in the neighborhood, their relation to the Allen home.

In addition to that Mr. Coffman said that he was doing all sorts of things that evening, running errands, going to the mall, taking missionaries home, going out to Skaggs. But what did he see and what did he observe?

You'll recall that he said as he was coming back from having taken the missionaries home it was around 8:58. He needed to go to Skaggs. And what had he forgotten? He had forgotten the tax number to make the purchases. So he zoomed on home, stopped at the house, I believe had Jeff run in, one of the boys run in and get the tax number and then left.

And what did he see and what did he observe as he left around nine o'clock that evening? The defendant, Stephen Allen. ANd where was the defendant at that time? He wasn't driving up and down the street, he wasn't at Dillards, he wasn't at the church, he wasn't at Sonic. Where was he? He was there at his home in his driveway, and Mr. Coffman said it appeared to me that he was ready to leave, he was getting ready to go. No question in Mr. Coffman's mind what he saw and when he saw it. Nine o'clock this defendant at his home. Contrary, certainly, to what this defendant tells Mr. Otte, tells us later on.

Also recall that Mr. Coffman told us what? Well, after I went to Skaggs I tried to come home and the police wouldn't let me in, so we had to tote our groceries from the Vaclaws around on the sidewalks up to the home. Is that important? Well, in this respect, and particularly when we talk about Mr. Gluba's testimony. The police were doing some things, as they told you they were, to secure that scene, to preserve that scene, so that they could take evidence vital to this case.

Recall after Irving Coffman we put on his son Allen. What did Allen tell you? Well, that he had

been to the Boy Scout meeting and that he needed to rendezvous with Daniel Eastman and that Daniel was to come over and talk about the scouting trip. And you'll recall that he told you that Daniel arrived about nine p.m. and Daniel left about 9:20.

And what did Allen do as he walked out to say goodbye to Daniel? He messed around in the garage looking for a mess kit, out there working in the garage trying to find what he needed. As I recall his testimony he says, I was there from 9:30 to 9:40 looking, trying to find something. Then he said, while I was there nothing unusual happened in the neighborhood.

Now, this a fella that's in his garage with the garage door up just down the road to the east of the Allen home. He's out there and said nothing unusual is going on. He said, I didn't see anything unusual happening there at the Allen home. My dogs didn't bark, I didn't hear any glass breaking. Then he went in. He said, I didn't know anything was going on until the police arrived and the sirens got the dogs stirred up then.

Next witness was Craig Hacker. You know, Mr. Hacker lived down there at the corner. And what did he tell you? Again, he and his wife all evening out and about in the yard, mowing, doing things. He said that he saw the defendant drive by somewhere -- south to north somewhere between 8:55 and 9:15.

Now, you recall as he first testified he said, well, it was early, and then I asked him, I said, well, Mr. Hacker, did you talk with the O.S.B.I. in this case shortly after and did you give them this time from of 8:55 to 9:15, and he said, well, yes, sir, that time would be better. So again, contrary to what this defendant tells us. We have him again in that area in and around his home.

After Mr. Hacker we presented the testimony of Barbara Larson, and you'll recall Mrs. Larson lives where? Directly to the west, directly to the west of the Coffmans. And I think, from the evidence that we have, Allen Coffman barely got inside before what happened? The Larsons pulled in.

And what did Mrs. Larson tell us? She said, you know, I pulled a real dumb thing. What did I do? Well, we were out and about an hour or so and what did I do? I left the car unlocked and I left the garage door opener in there. I said, well, Ms. Larson, when you went inside was there any problem, any intruder been in there rifling through your things? She said, no, it was fine.

And we asked in a little bit, well, how do you fix the time? And they said, well, we had just gotten gasoline and that was at about 9:36 because we had our charge slip and so we were home by 9:38. And what did she tell you? She says, I know the green car was there at that time and I'm 99 percent sure the blue car was there. What else did she tell you? The Allens house was dark.

So, as we go through the neighbors, keep times, keep the comings and goings in your mind about what's really going on in that neighborhood that night. Allen Coffman barely getting inside as the Larsons drive up. We know that.

Weston Larson, next witness. What did he tell you? Well, he knew a little bit about what was going on in the neighborhood because he recalled as they left to go to church he saw the herrings and the Nowotnys out on their front porch area talking, and he noticed, when they drove home, that they weren't there.

And what did he tell you he did when he arrived home? Well, I had to put up the other car, I had to tend to the stuff in the backyard because we were going on vacation and I had to tend to the tomato plants, I had to take care of the sprinkler system for my son because he was going to watch the plants and all that.

And he said, you know, I'm walking around out there and I'm facing the Allen house, I can see the backyard area, and there's nothing out of the ordinary going on. My dog's not upset, I'm not hearing anything. Nothing unusual happens. He says, in fact, nothing unusual happens until Mike Vaclaw shows up at, what, ten after ten. Something like that. So, again, take that diagram, look at the neighborhood and examine the testimony of the neighbors as you think about what really went on that evening.

Next witness, Ms. Doughty, Vicky Doughty. What was she doing? She was there to pick up the mail for the Vigesaas, the people that live directly across the street from the Coffmans and to the east of the Allens. The people that are gone on vacation. An empty home. A perfect target for an intruder. Anything happen there? Anything broken in there? We know there wasn't. How do we know that? Well, that's something I forgot to tell you with Lieutenant Davis. Remember. He said, yeah, I went to that area, I checked in their shed, I checked around the house. I found no problems.

There was another house that was vacant that night too, and we'll get to that a little later. Whose was that? The Spears. We've got two houses surrounding the Allen home, and yet which house is picked? Consider that as you look at the neighborhood that night and what really went on.

Next witness we presented then was Daniel Eastman. What did Daniel tell you? Well, he went to the Coffmans; that he returned home about 9:30; that the route that he took was down Jefferson there, up Lincoln Place around on Wilson. How did he go? On his bicycle. He notice anything unusual at the Allen home? No. Dogs upset? No.

And where was Daniel all during this time? Well, before he went to the Coffmans he was out mowing because if he didn't get the mowing done he wasn't going on the canoe trip. And where was he after the Coffmans? Bank in the yard mowing. He said, you know, I had a little bit of a problem because it was dark and I'm out there mowing the front yard and trying to get that done so I can go on my canoe trip. I said, Daniel, do you have a dog? Yes, sir. Where was your dog? The backyard. Daniel, did your dog do anything during that time period, get upset about anything? No, sir. No sir, it didn't.

And what else did he tell you? The fence, the crumpled fence, that's the hopping point. That's the place where the kids go back and forth going about their play and their travels as they go through the neighborhood.

So look at that. Look at the Allen home. Look at everything going on in the neighborhood. That house was surrounded by people doing what we all do every evening all the time, and yet, yet the only hint, the only suggestion, the only idea that there was anything wrong comes from where? This defendant.

Then you'll recall we presented the testimony of Kay Herring. Where was she? Well, at least until nine o'clock she was out on the front porch with her husband, with the Nowotnys, and that she observed Mr. Allen coming to and from, back and forth, and what did she tell you? That she went in about nine o'clock, had to take a phone call and did not come out until when? When she found out that something had gone on at the Allen home.

Then we presented the testimony of her husband Bob Herring. What did Mr. Herring tell you? Well, that he saw the defendant drive from south to north when? When? After his wife went in to take the phone call. After nine o'clock. And you'll recall he told you that he was out there with the Nowotnys somewhere between until about 9:20 as I recall his testimony.

And you'll recall, what did he say? Well, I saw Steve several times that evening, but the last time I saw him as he drove south to north what happened or what didn't happen? He didn't wave. He looked away.

And you'll recall that Bob Herring then went over and tried to comfort and console the defendant, later on that evening had prayer with him there in his garage. I think that tells a little bit abut Bob Herring, about his relationship with Stephen Allen. I hope you determine his credibility, if he didn't hear something right, if he's making up something about what the defendant said.

Because what does Bob tell you? He said, I went to Sandra's funeral. I went up to Steve after the funeral and embraced him and talked with him. And what did he tell him? He said, Bob, I don't know if I killed her or not. Bob said, well -- he didn't know what to think about that. I didn't know what was going on.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've been speaking to you now for 30 minutes. And I asked, when I came up here, if Mr. Otte would alert me when a half hour had gone by. And the reason why I asked him to do that is that's important in this case, and I think you know why it's important. All the time I've been speaking to you so far is the same time that Stephen Allen was in his home that nit before he called 911. Inside his home before he called emergency crews to render aid and assistance to his wife who had her head bashed in and was lying dying on the floor as her life's blood spilled there in that room. 30 minutes.

He had time to check out the living room and see if there was a problem. He had time to hold her. He says he had time to shake her. He had time to get the hammer and pound it down out of frustration, and he had time to hide that hammer and put it in the attic. And he took all that time, all this time that I've been speaking to you, and Sandra Allen lies on the floor dying. Now, we'll come back to that.

Now, Bob Herring. Bob Herring says he told me he didn't know if he did it. Now, what do we know about Stephen Allen at that point? He ought to know what he's saying. He's not having any more memory problems, he's not suffering from brief reactive psychosis anymore. And why is that? Well, he had bee to Dr. Reynolds on the 13th, two days before the funeral, and doc said he's fine. He didn't have any brief reactive psychosis on the 13th so he's got to be over that, if he had it. He's got to be over that.

So consider that as you look at what Bob Herring told you and what Stephen Allen says, well this is what I really said.

After Bob Herring we presented the testimony of Tonya Crossman. You recall Miss Crossman being the unit secretary there at Jane Phillips Hospital and the person who has that unpleasant task of trying to comfort and aid family members who are distraught, upset.

That she sees Stephen Allen come in that night covered with blood, and what's the first thing he says to her? Is she talking. Is she talking. Not can I see my dear Sandra. Is she going to be okay. Is she breathing. No. Is she talking. Why was that so important? Why was that so vital for Stephen Allen to know? If she was talking he called too soon. That's why that was so important.

And what's Stephen Allen have to say about that? Gosh, I guess I was still in brief reactive psychosis because I don't remember telling her that.

Now, as Dr. Reynolds went through the diagnosis of that malady I don't recall anything dealing with memory on that, but you recall on that issue. Got a memory problem. Gosh, I don't remember talking to her.

You recall what else Miss Crossman told you, that the defendant was able to respond to her questions, give her information that she needed to complete her paperwork. And I said, well, was there anything unusual about that? And she said, well, I didn't really think about it at first, but as I reflect, as I look upon my dealing with other people, that was strange, that was different. She said, lot's of times I can't get anything out of these people, and yet Stephen Allen was able to go through and tell her everything she needed to know.

Next witness. Joe Slack. Joe Slack told you that the heard the information, that something had happened in the Allen neighborhood and he called in and said can I help. And they said, sure, come on out. And what did he do? He went through the neighborhood. He had his searchlight and saw nothing. And they said Joe, Joe, we need you to go to the hospital and contact Mr. Allen and get his clothes and would you do that, and he said, sure, I'll do that. And he also told you, I never went in the house that night. I guess Officer Grayson kept somebody out. He said, I never went in the house that night because I didn't have any business there. I spent my time doing other things, looking in the neighborhood, attempting to get those clothes.

Now, what else did Joe Slack tell you? He said, I'm an EMT. I've got some experience dealing with people who have been in these stressful traumatic situations. And he said, something was wrong with Stephen Allen. It wasn't right. Didn't ring true. Something didn't click.

He told you then that he took the clothes and that he returned those clothes to the scene and I believe gave those to Investigator Pottroff.

Our next witness was Herb Cline. You recall what Officer Cline told you. He was in the neighborhood area, that he first started searching somewhere to the south in the wooded area. As he was doing that he got a call that there was someone on the street a quarter mile to a half mile away.

So what did he do? He hopped in his car and he ran down there, and he said I unpleasantly put this gut on the ground, you know, guns drawn, assumed the position, and what did he find? He found some foreign guy that he scared half to death. He said, you know, this gut was going -- was too far from the scene, nothing wrong with his clothing, wasn't out of breath, he wasn't dirty. The only problem he had was he didn't know why I had my gun out and I was putting him on the ground. And that's it. That's the only person we find out and about that night. And he's down by Wayside School.

Also remember that Officer Cline told you then that the search shifted, went out behind the Allen residence in a wooded area there in the fields there; that he was involved in going into the backyard of the Spears' home and looking around because he couldn't get over the high fence, but looking in that area to see if anyone could be found. And he was searching there and the Spears come home and ultimately we know that no problem, nothing wrong there at the Spears' home.

Our next witness then was Larry Pottroff. What did Investigator Pottroff tell you? Well, that he was called to assist; that he came out to the scene and about the observations he made of the scene, that he found a scene of violence, about the broken television, the broken mirror, the broken glass in the door, about the blood all over, those things.

What else did he tell you? He tried that screen door, he couldn't open it. He checked that counter top. Now, I have in my notes he says, I spent six or seven minutes checking that counter top after we talked to Stephen Allen to see if we could find a bump, see if we could find a dent, and it wasn't there. Wasn't there. Of course, we know what happens. After the scene's released, after law enforcement is gone, we've got bumps on counter and we've got doors that will open.

What else did Officer Pottroff tell you? Well, he said, I checked Sandra Allen's purse. I didn't take it, but I checked it. We've got a picture of it there that you can look at. He said, I checked it and I found it to be intact. The wallet was in there, money in the wallet, driver's license there, checked it out.

Also tell you that he's the one that found the hammer, found the paper towels. Of course, we know from Officer Mason and Officer Otte, we've got the photographs there of those and you'll have a chance to look at those and examine those.

We also, you recall, we have the testimony of Officer Pottroff that he did a search outside, and what did he find? Nothing. Now, he did make some observations though, and what was that? That the grass was moist, the dirt in the area, and he showed you that dirt being just to the east of the patio area, that it was moist, that it had no footprints in it.

Now, Mr. Lee, I think it was, told us that there was no dew that night, so we know if the ground or the grass was moist it didn't come from dew. But if you also look in the photographs of that patio area, what else do you see? Well, you see a garden hose. What else do we have? Summertime. Two year old in the backyard playing while dad's mowing in the front. My point is, we can't assume because there's no dew that the dirt, the grass weren't moist in that area. There's all sorts of other ways that that could happen. And Officer Pottroff said, I observed that and it was moist and I saw nothing there to indicate a perpetrator, an intruder.

And I guess, you know, going back to Officer Davis, he doesn't know anything about meteorology, but he still is pretty sure that there was no dew that night. And I guess after hearing Mr. Lee we're sure about that, too.

And then you recall we presented the testimony of Steve Gardella. Officer Gardella was involved in taking the consent to search for Mr. Allen so that the search could continue as far as the cars, the defendant and his home' that he was involved in assisting Investigator Franchini as they took the various items of evidence.

Again, what do we know from Officer Gardella? The tests that he and Mr. Franchini performed and not being able to open that patio door. He was involved in the crime scene sketch, the dimensions, and of course, you have all that as you look at both the photographs and the pieces of evidence that were taken.

Then we presented Mr. Franchini, and what did Mr. Franchini tell you? Well, his involvement at the scene, taking measurements, taking evidence, the manner in which tat was done, the items of evidence that were taken into custody, the precautions that were taken not to contaminate those items, and the sketch and his evidence list.

You recall some of the things that he did, you know, that as they'd scrape the sample they'd use a clean razor blade, they would put the razor blade as well as the sample into separate bindles, and that procedure was followed for every piece of evidence, for every item taken. That they wore gloves so that they would not contaminate the things that were taking. That he did fingerprint lifts of various areas of the house, and what? Found nothing. Found nothing.

And then he took the photographs, the many exhibits that you have, as he described the area; and, of course, you'll have those photographs to show the scene, the area of violence that was involved in this case.

Our next witness was Officer Mason. What did he tell you? Observations he made at the scene. Now, Officer Mason's not been with N.I.S. or has not gone to a bunch of fancy schools, not done a bunch of things that other people has, but what did he say? I worked burglaries, I've been an investigator, and when I went to this scene there was something wrong. This was a scene of violence. This suggested to me family violence. This didn't fit, this didn't fit what we were bing told.

Then he's challenged. Said, well, then you decided it's Stephen Allen. No, sir. Stephen Allen became a better suspect at that point, but I still couldn't rule out the other person. And we did other things to try to pursue that and find out and see if we could find anything to establish the intruder story.

And you'll recall that Officer Mason took various items into evidence, took photographs of the hammer and he didn't know he was doing it, but he used one of those fancy techniques called side lighting. You recall that Officer Mason told you that he went out on the patio and he took his light and he shined it along the patio to see if he could find any blood, to see if he could find anything that night, and he didn't.

And then we presented the testimony of Mr. Otte. What did Mr. Otte tell you? Again, his experience, his observations at the scene didn't hit. It was a scene of violence. And I think you can see that as you look at the photographs, as you look at the injuries to Sandra Allen, that it doesn't fit what's been suggested.

Mr. Otte told you about the responsibility of the case agent, told you about the coordination, responsibilities he had with his agency and with other agencies.

Then he told you about the statement of the defendant. And I'm not going to go through all that, but I want to highlight some things in this statement, and highlight some things from that statement that Mr. Otte wasn't told. What wasn't he told by the defendant? Well, he didn't tell him that he had to go back and get his keys to explain that trip. He didn't tell him that. He didn't tell him about being at his home at nine o'clock that evening as observed by Mr. Coffman. He didn't tell him about the card he had purchased that day for Debbe Aubrey after he bought the shower invitations. He didn't tel him about driving by south to north as observed by Craig Hacker and Bob Herring. Didn't tell him about that. He didn't tell him about the precise details of the routes that he took as he made his various drives throughout the city that night. Defendant didn't tell him that he shook his wife twice. He didn't tell him about his affair Deborah Aubrey. He didn't tell him that he locked [his son] in the car. He told him some stuff, but there's a whole bunch, a whole bunch he didn't tell him that we didn't find out until we heard from this defendant.

What did he tell you though? He said, well, I got home about 9:25 that night, and after I hid the hammer I called 911. He told Mr. Otte that.

Then you recall we presented the testimony of Lynette Lee. Miss Lee, you have her report and analysis that she did. The hairs that she analyzed, the blood tests that she did, and what did she find and what didn't she find? Well, she found absolutely no evidence of a sexual assault in this case. She found blood on a hammer. That blood matching the blood type of the victim. She found hairs in the paper towels, those hairs matching that of the victim. She found blood on the glass, broken glass in the patio door. Blood on the face board and blood on the TV screen.

Look through her report. She found absolutely nothing, nothing to suggest or tell teh presence of an intruder.

Dennis Reimer. Mr. Reimer did glass analysis for us. What did he find? Various samples submitted to him matched what? The TV, the mirror, the broken patio door. What else? The tiny, tiny slivers found in the handle of the hammer matched, were consistent with the glass coming from the patio door.

And when you get back there, if you open up that glass, be careful because those articles are small. You'll lose them, if you can even see them. And consider that when the suggestion is made that somehow those were planted or something was done to get that glass on there later.

Then you'll recall we presented Dale Billam. Mr. Billam presented the prof notes and the notes from the personal computer. And I hope you'll spend some time reading those and looking at those, because they say so much, they tell us so much about this defendant.

We don't need tree drawings, we don't need swing set drawings, we don't need M.M.P.I., M.C.I. whatever other letters we can come up with to know about this defendant. We can know about this defendant by looking at those notes.

It's those notes that show a man going through conflict, going through frustration, going through unhappiness. Showing a man with conflict and tension. And when does that come about? After April 30th, after the rejection by his wife saying I'm fine, I'm satisfied with the way our sex life is, I'm not going to change. But we see that frustration and those problems there increasing day by day by day.

The references to weekend, the reference to being the mess, the need to talk to, be with Debbe Aubrey. It's all there. It tells us so much. It shows us so much that he had the time to work on the problems of Charles and Debbe Aubrey, but wasn't doing anything to solve his own problems at home.

And why not? What could he do? Mrs. Allen was happy. She didn't see a need for a change. This is a guy who says, well, sex frequency was no big deal. But again, as you read those notes you can see the frustration, the conflict, the pressure mounting and boiling.

Deborah Geurin. What did Ms. Geurin tell us? Again, problems that this defendant had in his life. Problems with his wife, problems with her coldness towards him, problems with little things as not responding to him.

Deborah Aubrey. Stephen Allen's lover. His special friend. The lady he supplied Jolly Ranchers to, Laffy Taffy to and the lady that he was so concerned about her Easter candy. The lady that he didn't love. He didn't lover her. Sure needed to see her and talk to her a lot. He didn't lover her, he simply had sec with her. We know that happened for about six months. And why? To prove his manhood and make sure everything was working okay because of his wife's rejection. That's what we learned from Debbe Aubrey.

Then you recall we presented Doug Perkins. What did Mr. Perkins tell you? Mr. Perkins being a criminalist with the O.S.B.I.; that he had the opportunity to examine the defendant's shirt, shoes and watch, and he examined other things. In fact Doug Perkins is the one who found the glass Dennis Reimer matched up from the hammer to the patio glass.

What did Mr. Perkins find? He said, well, when I examined the watch, when I examined the shirt, I examined the shoes, I found medium velocity blood spatter. Now, Mr. Perkins, can we get that from other things? Yes, sir. Can we get that from exacerbated blood, by sneezing, by coughing? Yes, sir. Can we get that from shaking? Yes, sir. Can we get that from stomping? Yes, sir. But Mr. Perkins, based on your analysis, what you see a result of looking at that shirt, do you have an opinion as to how that blood spatter got on that shirt? What did he tell you? Yes, sir, I do. Blunt trauma. Blunt trauma force associated with a beating.

Now, you don't have to be an expert to see that. Take the shirt and look at it yourself. That blood patter, those spots, it's not there from shaking . Beating. Blunt trauma. Medium velocity.

And then you recall we presented the testimony of Robert Hemphill. What did Dr. Hemphill tell you? Well, he was board certified, too. Board certified in forensic pathology. Board certified in anatomical pathology. And he said what? I'm the guy that did the autopsy. I'm the guy that saw theses wounds firsthand. This lady died from what? Blunt trauma. He showed you the extent of the injury showing the entry to the brain, the force involved, breaking bones.

And then what did he say? He said, I can't exclude the hammer. Why not, doctor? I just cannot exclude that. He said, it would be foolish to do that. You don't know how it was held, you don't know how it was used, and we cannot simply exclude it because we do not see, quote, characteristic patterns.

Now, we know that there's two differences between Dr. hemphill and Dr. Baden as far as their qualifications. What's that? Well, Dr. Hemphill is not certified in clinical pathology, which as Dr. Baden told us really doesn't have anything to do with this case; and Dr. Hemphill hadn't been fired from his job.

Now, think about that as you look at the qualifications of these two witnesses and what they tell you and Dr. Baden tells you when he comes in and says, boy, I can tell you right now I didn't do the autopsy. In fact, I've done cause of death without doing an autopsy sometimes. I can exclude that hammer. Consider those qualifications as you look at that testimony.

Then with that the state rested. The state rested confident we had met our burden proving the charge.

Then the defense presented their case, and as the defense presented their case, what did we find? Well, we find that it's filled with outlandish what if's, inadequate experiments, and a parade of experts hoping to find something to suggest and support their contentions.

First defense witness was Cindy Spears. And what did Mrs. Spears tell you? Well, Sandra was happy in her marriage. We knew that. As far as she knew she had a faithful husband, had a good job. He was bringing home a paycheck. She was going to get a vacation. She didn't know her husband was more concerned with spending time with Debbe Aubrey and solving her problems than he was fixing up things at home.

What else did Mrs. Spears tell us? Sandra Allen was doing the laundry that day. So what. Could that be how she got some of those mysterious fibers? More of those what if's under her fingernail that apparently, according to the defense, have some application to this case.

Theresa Miller. What did she tell us? Told us about the mysterious phone call and dirty picture she got in her car. Again, what's that got6 to do with this case? What's the link? How does it show anything or is it just another what if, something that might of happened?

And what did Theresa Miller tell us? Well, she thought the caller was Stephen Allen. Now, we've got another explanation for that. What did Mr. Gluba tell us? You guys, you messed up. You should have printed the phone because the perpetrator may have called Sandra Allen at work from her own phone to see if her husband was at home or not. That's what Mr. Gluba told us.

Mark Jared. He told us about the Sonic ticket. Nine thirteen. And what he can't tell us is where the defendant went either before or after that.

That's what we learned from Mr. Jared.

Mr. Ptacek. Again, what's he tell us? Well, we've got some time records, got some time records about when Sandra Allen left that night. We knew that. When Mark Spurgeon left that night.

Barry Krueger. Well, you remember Mr. Krueger, What did he do? Cleaned the tapes, gave us better recordings. And what did he tell you? He said, well, the 911 call, that tape was pretty good to start out with. I guess we needed to get that better so that Dr. Shuy, as he used is expensive tape recorders, could hear it and make his transcript.

Sue Coffman. What did she tell? [The child} was clean, had a bath. We stipulate to that. Nothing to suggest otherwise.

David Nowotny. Well, he was in the area visiting with the Herrings. He saw Stephen Allen coming and going. That's what we learned from Mr. Nowotny.

John Bevard. He brought the very video camera Mr. Mason used.

Then we have Dr. Shuy. The first in our parade of experts. And what did he tell you? Well, how he painstakingly, over and over and over, listened to tapes, made a transcript. And do this for me. As you listen to that, as you look at those, I'll suggest to you that Morris Alveno on that tape is Bartlesville Ambulance.

Now, I guess that's no big deal in the scheme of things, but this man with his expensive tape recorders who is saying that Terri Lippert made a real poor transcription, give us Morris Alveno when it's suppose to be Bartlesville Ambulance.

And what did he say? Well, after I've mad my handy dandy transcript I listened and I could tell that Steve Allen was upset. I could that based on his language structure, and obviously I've to know more than a dispatcher about that because I'm linguist and I know how you're suppose to talk and how things are suppose to come out.

And then you remember all his charts and graphs, and I'm sure you'll get to see those again, about how, you know, this officer said one thing and wrote down something else and because of that we really don't know what he thinks.

He spent a lot of time about primary data and secondary date, and we got a good foundation about linguists. What it has to do with this case I really don't know.

Blair Gluba. Mr. Gluba joined the defense team to show us what we did wrong, but the problem was Mr. Gluba wasn't given all the information. Next time, Mr. Gluba, if you're going to correct what's done get all the information, get all the facts and then come in and tell us about it.

Barry Rouw. Remember Mr. Rouw. Investigator, and what did we get? Well, for $11,000 we got a gut who couldn't remember anything because he hadn't reviewed his report. The last time he saw it was before preliminary hearing when he gave it to Mr. Carlson. He didn't remember w3hat he did with the evidence, what evidence he got, when he did something with it, but we do know from the videos he broke glass and did experiments, even though the carpet in his experiment was not tacked down and was different from the scene that night. You know, maybe Mr. Gluba ought to have a discussion with Mr. Rouw.

Jerry Horton. What did Mr. Horton tell us? Well, that he can drive where ever you tell him to and that cars get hot when there're driven and cool off when you don't drive them. That's what we learned from Mr. Horton.

Who was the next defense witness? Dr. Roger Burch. Recall Dr. Burch. Who was he? Sandra Allen's eye doctor. The guy that fit her in contact lenses in March of 1990. What did he tell you? He said I took those lenses from this case and I examined those lenses, and upon my examination of those lenses I found those to be within the range of her prescription. I read it as a minus 4.5, he says, and I felt like that lense was hers because of that reading, because of the size, because of the color. And he said something that I think is so significant; and that is, he said, I looked at that and I felt like that was the lense I sent her home in.

Now, this is not the state's witness; this is the defense witness.

MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, I object. Can we approach the bench.

THE COURT: For the purpose of the discussion about what evidence was the state's evidence, he was called as state's evidence for that portion of the testimony and he was allowed to be called out of time for convenience of all parties. So part of the testimony was he was called as a state's witness, though called out of time. So that was the agreement of the state and defense.

MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, I would ask the jury be asked to disregard Mr. Corgan's comments.

THE COURT: So stand corrected to that effect.

MR. CORGAN: What did Dr. Burch tell us? Her contact -- that's the contact he sent her home in. And he also says something else. He say's, well, I may not have a lot of patents, I may not have a hunch of fancy degrees, but I can read contact lenses with the best of them, and I felt like that was hers.

And we have the testimony of Dan Dooley. What did Mr. Dooley tell us? Well, the contact lens, and we know it wasn't a contact lens, it was a contact lens in pieces, and you'll have that back there and you can see. We're talking about two contacts. We're talking about one whole contact and we're talking about pieces of another. He said, those were found on the body.

Well, we know that? Why do we know that? Well, form later testimony we know that Sandra Allen had her contact lenses in that night. We know that they were taken off the body. Then things get confused. Mr. Dooley says he gave them to somebody. We can't find nobody he gave them so. So. I suggest to you that those contacts taken off Sandra Allen's body are her contacts. They remained on the body and that's what Dan Dooley and Dr. Hemphill think.

Dr. Reynolds. What did he tell you? Well, I read the results between minus 5.25 and minus 5.75. He said, you ought to be able to read within an eight of a diopter. Well, doctor, that doesn't fit the range you've given us there. From 5.25 to 5.75 is a half and if you're saying that it's five and a half it's a quarter to either side of that. So consider that as you look at Dr. Reynolds and the suggestion that these are someone else's contacts.

Larry Birk. He read it as a minus 5.25. Again, the difference we're talking about 5.25 and 4.75, at most, at most a half diopter. Consider that.

You know, we didn't find three contacts, we didn't find four contacts. Yeah, if we found three or four then maybe the suggestion could be made that they're somebody else's, but we didn't find that. We found a whole and we found some pieces, and we know that they came off -- we know the contact came off Sandra Allen's body that night. So again, another what if, what if. It doesn't have anything to do with this case.

Gene Lee. Well, Mr. Lee, for $2,670, was able to tell us there was no dew on June 11 and June 12th. Okay. That was his testimony.

Peter Barnett. Mr. Barnett the criminalist from California. Well, you would expect to find blood on a hammer and glass on a hammer and since we didn't the hammer couldn't have been used and that the defendant couldn't have broken that glass. You'll recall my cross-examination. I said, now, Mr. Barnett, there's a lot of other things that could account for that not being there, aren't there, sir, and begrudgingly we talked about that.

What else did he tell you? He said, well, I didn't really do any blood typing, I didn't do any hair analysis until I wanted to talk about the hairs on the paper towels and what Lynette Lee found, and then it turns out that he had done a little bit more that he really told us.

Harold Wootton. Let me -- I'm not going to go through every character witness, so let me give Harold Wootton as a example as we talk about what five, six -- I don't know how many we heard. And what did basically Mr. Wootton tell us? Well, affairs are wrong. Regardless of that I wouldn't change my opinion about this man's character.

Now, if you're wrong about somebody's character as to whether they had an affair or not, doesn't common sense tell you you might ought to examine your opinion about that person and their character and the type of person they are? That's what common sense tells you, but you recall each one of these men, those fellows, what did they tell us? Wouldn't change my opinion. He was always honest with me. Well, sure, he wasn't cheating on them, he was cheating on his wife.

Dr. Baden. Dr. Baden, who's board certified in one other area than Dr. Hemphill. What did he tell us? The hammer couldn't have done it, could not have caused those injuries. And I'm not going to rehash that, but you look at Dr. Hemphill's testimony, you look at Dr. Baden testimony. You take those autopsy photographs and you look at her skull caved in, holly pieces on the right side, and you tell me how anyone can tell us what was used, and consider that in determining who you find to be most believable, the most credible as to that issue.

What else did he tell you? Well, bleeding is such that I wouldn't expect a pool of blood and therefore the perpetrator may or amy not have stepped in blood, and we can't tell anything about sweating. Dr. Hemphill came back to tell us about the contact lens found on the body.

Dr. Gene Reynolds. If you believe Dr. Reynolds, what we need to do then is shut up the courthouse, close down the court system, send all those folks to school and start giving kids tests and when they get through with their tests and they turn out to be abnormal, we need to send them to the good doctor so he can fix them.

What did he tell you? Stephen Allen's normal. He had no pathology and because of that he doesn't have the personality type to commit murder. He says, I know that because I saw him on June 13th and a couple other times after that, and those tests show he's okay and he couldn't have done it.

What else did he determine? Brief reactive psychosis. Explain why it took him so long to call. And I asked him, I said, doctor, when did you figure out that was his problem. He wans't suffering from it on June 13th, 1990, was he? He said, no, sir, and I don't think I ever got an answer to that question. He said, well, at some point, some point, after I read the transcripts or I saw the reports, I determined that it was brief reactive psychosis. I said, well, doctor, did you talk to people about that, and he said, no, I relied on the testimony. He said, Mr. Corgan did a good job of asking those psychological questions so that I could determine from a preliminary hearing transcript that this man was suffering from brief reactive psychosis.

Then we talked about the tests, and I'm sorry. I don't know much about psychology, but I still have a problem with the swing picture. The doctor told you what he thinks it means. I still have a problem with Mr. Allen out there by himself. There he is out there by himself. So what does that tell us?

You know, probably as I listen to Dr. Reynold's testimony what saddened me the most about his testimony was his analysis of the wedding ring. You recall the good doctor threw that testimony in whenever he could. He said, well, Steve Allen's having a problem coping with the lose of his wife because he still wears his wedding ring. Well, I wonder if when Steve Allen was there with Debbe Aubrey for six months he was wearing his wedding ring then, whether it was especially dear and important to him then.

Next witness was Melvin Hett, and Mr. Hett tells you Sandra Allen had some fibers under her fingernails.

Mike Gann and other fireman. What did they tell you? Steve Allen was crying, he was upset. We don't know why, but it may have been remorseful, may have been sorry for what he had done. We don't know. We don't know.

Larry Harjo. Larry Harjo come in to bring the records of this employment with the excellent ratings. I guess my question is had the company known about the time or prof notes, about the time spent conversing on personal matter with Debbe Aubrey, would that still be an excellent rating?

Then we had the testimony of the defendant, Stephen Allen. Now, again, I'm not a psychologist, but little things kind of occur to me sometimes, and something That was interesting to me as I listened to the testimony of Stephen Allen, and it appeared to me that both in the prof notes and his testimony, when he talked about his wife Sandra he talked about her as she. She, she, she, she, she. Whenever we got to Miss Aubrey and her problems it was Debbe. It was Debbe.

Now, the defendant wants us to believe that he was happy in his marriage. The prof notes tell you something different than that. He wants you to believe there was an intruder that evening. The neighborhood tells you something different than that. He wants you to believe that it was reasonable to wait 30 minutes before calling 911. Yeah, that's reasonable if you're waiting for somebody to die. He wants you to believe that it's reasonable that you leave a child outside with suspect perpetrator and then even if you leave him outside you don't get back to him for half an hour later. We're not talking about a big child, we're talking about a two year old. That's what he wants you to believe.

He wants you to believe that just out of frustration you take a hammer, you bang it down and because it has nothing to do with the case you go hide it in the attic. He wants you to believe that he's so torn up, so concerned about the death of his wife and yet two days after her death and two days before she's buried he's down with the good Dr. Reynolds checking out to make sure he's okay.

He wants you to believe what he said to Bob Herring and Allen Eastman he didn't say. Yet if he was suffering from brief reactive psychosis he had to be long over it by then.

He wants you to believe that his convenient memory lapses, what he told officers at the scene and what he told Tonya Crossman are natural due to the trauma.

He wants you to believe that he's not guilty, but he has such a tremendously important interest in the outcome of this case.

Then the defense presented Mr. Laber and Mr. Epstein. And we can discuss -- compare what Mr. Perkins told us to what Mr. Bevel told us with what Mr. Laber and Mr. Epstein told us all day, an I'm sure defense will do that with you. We'll leave that to you. We'll leave that to you as you apply those expert witnesses's testimony and the instructions.

What did we show? We showed that their experiments were inadequate, that there was problems in it. We showed that what they found is not supported by Stephen Allen's T-shirt. We showed that the stains, blood spatters, are not form shaking.

You know, you can run strings and strings and points of convergence form her forever, but that doesn't change that shirt. And use your own common sense and pull out that shirt and look at it. That'll tell you why.

After Mr. Laber and Mr. Epstein testified, the state presented rebuttal. First witness was Tonya Crossman. What did she tell you? She never received contact lenses. Why didn't she? Well, those lenses that they took off Mrs. Allen, they never got to Tonya Crossman or anyone else. It landed up on Sandra Allen's body, later found by the medical examiner. And those are Sandra Allen's lenses you have in that box.

Allen Eastman. He told you that he attended the funeral and what Mr. Allen said to him. That he didn't remember, didn't know if he did it. Then we presented the testimony of Shirley Proctor, janice Shields, Kelly Johnson. They didn't ever give Mr. Allen any tests, they didn't do the M.C.I. or M.M.P.I., the A.B.C. or D.G. R. or whatever kind of tests, but what did they do? They knew Stephen Allen, they had occasion to be around him. What did they tell you? They said the Stephen Allen we know is different than the Stephen Allen Dr. Reynolds knows and all the other character witnesses know. We know him to be a person who has a temper, has some problems in that area.

Then we presented the testimony of Tom Bevel, and apparently there's some controversy over talking about Police Science Degree versus Sociology Degrees, and you'll have to consider if that makes a difference to you as far as his testimony.

But what did he tell you? He went through the charts, went through the diagrams. He shows you the problems with those conclusions, and what did he say? Common sense tells you, look at the shirt, that's not from shaking.

After that, of course, you know we heard again from Dr. Reynolds. Got those tests out again. And we found out that Stephen Allen's still normal. With that the defense rested, both sides rested and we're here.

Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence shows that the defense case is not there. It doesn't disprove what the state has shown you.

MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, we'd object. He's trying to switch the burden of proof. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything. Burden of proof is on the state. We object.

THE COURT: The instructions cover that.

MR. CORGAN: Ladies and gentlemen, just because you call something a defense doesn't make it a defense.

I'm going to sit down in a minute and you're going to hear from Mr. Carlson and then I'll finally close. But I ask you to do this as you listen. I want you to listen to his argument and don't accept what if's, don't accept wild theories and speculations. Search for the truth and when you do you'll return a verdict of guilty in this case. 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 114 -162.

LH 2000