1

Do we kill D?

Now we get down to the ultimate issue: do we killBuddy Woodall? Must we kill Buddy? Is this the only way hecan be punished?

An issue as stark and as great an individual moraldecision as a human being can ever be called upon to make.I don’t envy you. I’ve never been in the position that each ofyou is now in. This young man’s life has been in my handsfor two years now. Very very soon his life will be in each ofyour hands.

I certainly hope and pray we’ve provided you with somereason to spare Buddy Woodall’s life, to sentence him to life.When I say life, you know what I mean.

Choice between 3 most harsh, severe, and extremepunishments

As we talked about in opening statement and as farback as voir dire, your decision is not between the deathpenalty and life! life free from punishment, free to come andgo as you please, free to be left alone to pursue yourdreams. Not that type life -- not free to play with our kids,hug our parents, or go fishing. No, life imprisonment.

The choice facing each of you is between the threeharshest, the three severest, and the three most extremepunishments allowed by law –

Death by lethal injection – where a human beingis strapped down, an IV is put in his vein, and an animaltranquilizer is dripped into his body that paralyzes the entirebody. Then a second drip, a drip of a poison, a killing agent

2

– sears into his veins. His body will resist with all it’s will, butafter some time, he will be dead.

Or, Life without any possibility ever of parole --a permanent life of chains, bars and razor wire. A sentencewhere you never have the hope of release. Make nomistake, a certain death sentence. He would leave prisonone way and one way only – in a casket. But a deathsentence in nature’s course rather than on the government’s.

Or, Life imprisonment with the one-day prayerof parole. We’re talking years from now, long after I’mretired and rocking in a rocking chair – and I’ve just turned39 – Buddy will have the chance to petition the Parole Boardfor release from prison. The parole board – a group ofcorrections experts, very very conservative folks. They won’ttake the slightest risk on anybody who’s been convicted ofdouble murder. If you are petitioning for parole and havebeen convicted of two counts of malice murder, to even get ameaningful parole hearing, you better have a perfect prisonrecord. In all likelihood, life with parole means life in prisonuntil you leave in a casket. But each day when you wake upyou have a sliver of hope that one day you might be able tobe with your wife, kids, and grandkids outside the prisonbars. Still on parole, forever on parole, but at least you’dearned your way to the other side of the razor wire.

Most of our time here together now, I want to talk with youabout the evidence. However, before we talk about theevidence, let’s talk for several minutes about the law thatguides your decision. It’s a bit dry but it’s very important.

3

LAW IS ALWAYS SATISFIED BY A LIFE PUNISHMENT

The Judge told you in juror selection that no case requires,mandates the death penalty. The only person asking you tokill Buddy Woodall is this lawyer, this advocate, thisAssistant District Attorney, Mr. Higgins.

The law and the judge are always satisfied with a lifepenalty. There is no automatic death penalty in any murder.The law is always satisfied with a life punishment. It’s notautomatic even when there are aggravating circumstancesproven beyond all doubt.The law is always satisfied with a life punishment. It’s notautomatic even when we have not put in one piece ofevidence or put on one single witness in the case -- hadn’ttold you anything about Buddy’s life, background, strugglesor successes. You may still vote for the severe sentence oflife imprisonment with none of this evidence in front of you.

MERCY

The judge will tell you that you are empowered to return alife punishment verdict based solely on mercy and that youare entitled to return a life sentence for any reason or noreason at all. That sounds a little odd but I think I know thereason for it.

This is an area where our legal system, the law, and thelessons of our upbringing, our morality, our Churchteachings, all connect up. They’re not in conflict. Our legalsystem is different and better than so many others becauseof the role we allow mercy and compassion to play in it. Theevidence you heard is evidence that you can and shouldreceive and consider with mercy and compassion in mind.

4

Mercy is like GRACE. It’s a gift given to us, bestowedupon us. While we can’t earn it, we can only hope to getmercy when we’ve been generous enough of spirit to give it.

We’ll talk about mercy in more depth a little later.

Final decision

The verdict that you render on this great question iswhat will decide whether this young man dies at the hands ofthe government or lives until he’s taken by natural causes. Itis up to you and only you. This is a fact decision. Each ofyou is the Supreme Court of the facts. You are supreme. Inyour hands is this supreme and final decision of whether Dlives. If any one of you decides that Buddy should bepunished with a life sentence, he will be.

Individual Decision

By “any one of you”, to reemphasize, this is not a groupdecision but each of you must act alone/independently inreaching your decision. The law requires your individualmoral assessment. This is tough.

In the old days when people were killed, they went tothe firing squad. In the firing squad, one person had blanksin his gun. This was so in case if it was later discovered thatthe wrong man was killed or that he should have gottenanother sentence, each member of the firing squad couldfind comfort by hoping that they had the gun with the blanks.

5

You are not as lucky. The judge will instruct you that thesentence must be your individual reasoned and moralassessment of Buddy and his life, his background. Not agroup choice. None of you have a blank. You personally,individually and by yourself are loaded -- loaded to give a lifesentence or loaded to kill.

The law acknowledges that death should be a lastresort, that it should be used in only the rarest ofaggravated murders. The law really encourages you toerr on the side of a life punishment.

One way the law favors a life sentence is in how youare to treat mitigating evidence versus aggravating evidence.

UNANIMITY

Aggravating evidence must be proven to all twelve ofyou, unanimously before anybody may consider it. So if oneof you thinks the prosecutor hasn’t proven to you that Mr.Lynn had his wallet with him that day, hasn’t proven that hewas arm robbed. Then none of you may consider that.

Mitigating evidence may be found by any one of you. Ifyou find it and the other eleven disagree with you, you mustcredit that mitigating evidence.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Aggravating circumstance must be proven to all 12 ofyou beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mitigating circumstance must be found by you, period.There is no proof level attached to it. If you think it’s there, ifyou feel it’s there, you must give it effect. So if 10 of you

6

think a mitigating fact exists, you must give it effect. If onlyone of you thinks it’s there, that one person must give iteffect. That’s why it is an individual moral assessment of theproper punishment.

SCOPE of EVIDENCE

Aggravating circumstance, you may only consider theaggravating circumstance that the prosecutor hasspecifically laid out to you – two deaths, armed robbery, duiconviction, bad conduct discharge from the Marine Corp.You are not allowed to consider any other reason to return adeath sentence.

So if your neighbor says, I think Mr. Woodall should getsentenced to death because he was involved in the death ofhis family member, his uncle, his blood ken. You must turn toyour neighbor a say, stop right there. The fact that the Mr.Lynn was his uncle rather than non-blood – a neighbor or astranger – is not an aggravating factor that the prosecutorrelied upon and we are not allowed to factor that into ourindividual decisions. Same with if you think he took the gunfrom his dad’s safe without permission.

But for mitigating circumstances, they are any reason,any reason, for you to find for life. This case does involvemitigating factors, plenty of them that we brought out. TheJudge told you that mitigating circumstances are anythingabout the life and background of the person. Any reason forgiving a life sentence. His life, his background, hisupbringing, the fact that he loves his kids or that they lovehim. His lack of a felony record. His limited service in theMarines. Anything about his environment, about his behaviorin jail and his predicted behavior in prison that makes himless deserving of the ultimate and extreme punishment ofdeath.

7

It’s not limited to what we presented to you. The Judgewill tell you that even if we have not talked to you aboutsomething, or if we didn’t call the type witness you wanted tohear, if we forgot to point something out -- You know it’shard to go through all the witnesses and be perfect inpredicting exactly what witnesses to call, how to narrow itdown – if it should in fairness and in mercy be considered byyou, even if we failed to bring it out, it must be considered byyou in determining between these harsh punishments.

DEATH IS A LAST RESORT

We’ve always had a great problem coming to grips withkilling something. Squirrel in front of car we automaticallyswerve to avoid it. Armed military conflict, police standoffs,we go to great lengths to avoid killing. We talk, we negotiate,we do anything possible to avoid opening fire on otherhuman beings. In our civilized world, in our society, in ourcommunity, killing is the last resort.

With these legal principles in mind, we get to the realquestion: Is Buddy so far beyond redemption that youmust eliminate him from the human community?

The evidence is clear that we are not to that lastresort in this case.

8

Before going through the evidence, LET’S TALKABOUT WHAT’S NOT AT ISSUE

Let’s talk about some things that are NOT at issue inthis courtroom.

NOT AN EXCUSE

First, this case, our evidence, and your sentence is notabout whether Buddy will be excused for what you haveconvicted him of. Our evidence doesn’t excuse these crimes.There is no excuse. It doesn’t justify these crimes. There isno justification. It doesn’t explain “why?” There is no goodreason that this awful crime happened.

We wouldn’t be in the sentencing trial in a capital caseis there was any excuse or justification for these crimes.

The only question now is, since you have held himresponsible, how do we punish him? Must we eliminate himfrom the human community?

The evidence we presented to you, gave to you, wasoffered to you to help understand Buddy -- Buddy today andwho Buddy could grow to be if you allow him to live in prison-- to help you in the sentencing decision. Not to justify orexcuse what he has been convicted of.

NOT ABOUT ESCAPING PUNISHMENT

Another thing not at issue is the notion of we’re askingyou to help Buddy escape punishment, it’s about choosingbetween the three most severe punishments allowed by law

Not about forgetting the VICTIMS

9

Mr. Higgins told you we wouldn’t talk about the victimsabout their pain and loss. That’s a red herring. Weacknowledge and respect the victims, all the victims in thisterrible crime.

The judge will instruct you on Victim Impact of thiscrime and that it is proper to consider the harm caused bythe crime. And to consider the impact on other innocentpeople. Of course there are innocent victims sitting on bothsides of this courtroom. People who were close to Mr. VanAllen and Mr Lynn on both sides. That includes the impacton Mr. and Ms. Woodall. And on Kristy and the boys. Theyare victims in several senses. They are friends to Mr. VanAllen, ken to Mr. Lynn and have lost him and obviously theyare standing by Buddy with all the strength they have.

We promised you in jury selection and through our thecase that we would do nothing to intentionally and unfairlydisparage or go out of our way to harm the memory of Mr.Robert Van Allen or Mr. Lavelle Lynn. We didn’t have fun ortake enjoyment in talking about Mr. Lynn’s drug dealing,fighting and felony drug conviction or Mr. Van Allen’scocaine use. We didn’t have fun asking Ms. Lynn aboutliving with another man within months the death of herhusband, now her new husband. A man who at the time wassuspected by the police of being responsible for the killings.We didn’t do this to disparage the dead or to embarrass theliving. We did have to follow the evidence. It was anecessary part of this case. I hope you can agree with us onthat.

I was taught growing up that two wrongs don’t make aright. The same is true with tragedy. A second tragedydoesn’t make the first tragedy go away. Or to paraphrase

10

Coretta Scott King, whose husband and mother-in-lawhave died the victims of murder and assassination -- Atragic deed is not redeemed by a tragic deed of retaliation.

The loss that has taken place to the Lynn and the VanAllen families is real. It is also final. This loss cannot beerased. This was a tragic and senseless loss of human life.This was a terrible crime committed here. It was wrong, itwas bad, and it is unforgivable. No question about it.

Nothing you do in the juror room can bring them back,can put them back with their loved ones. We wish there wassomething you could do to bring them back. What we’retalking about is in light of this terrible loss, this awful tragedy,how do we punish? Is killing Buddy Woodall the onlyappropriate sentence? That’s the issue.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MITIGATING FACTORS?

A CASE WHERE DEATH PENALTY SHOULDN’T BECONSIDERED

REMAINING/LINGERING/RESIDUAL DOUBT

Before we even get into Buddy’s life I want to talk to youabout the crime. I want to tell you right up front that this isnot a case where the death penalty should even be underconsideration?!

Obviously the death penalty is an option or else we wouldn’tbe here now. There is an aggravating circumstances foundin this case. Your verdict found Buddy guilty of two counts ofmalice murder and armed robbery. That’s not an issue.

11

So how can I so boldly say you shouldn’t even give any realconsideration to the option of putting Buddy to death?

Because the prosecutor failed to prove Buddy guilty beyondall doubt! Beyond all doubt!

<objection!!! Not the burden of proof><sustained!!!>

It is fine for the prosecutor to object, legally he isright.

It is fine for the law to have a lower standard,legally the judge is right.

But how much proof you need before you take aman’s life isn’t a question for the prosecutor,it isn’t a question for the law, ultimately thequestion is solely between you and yourconscience/ you and your God!

I wasn’t in deliberations with you, you were there a longwhile, you had a lot of conflicting facts to sort out. You werein there a long while, at least in part, because the state failedto prove their case beyond all doubt. They should and youare completely free to require that much proof before youwould even get to the question of which punishment isappropriate.

The judge will tell you that you may consider residual doubtin reaching your verdict. All this means is that you areempowered to return a life verdict if you have any questionabout the quality or amount of proof presented in this case.

There is a reason for this. It isn’t just some fancy legalconcept. Let’s step back for just a moment, ever thought

12

about how innocent people get sentenced to death andexecuted for crimes they didn’t commit?

Ever thought about how did jurors feel? How did thoseprosecutors feel?

Nobody set out to execute innocent people. Nobody madethese tragic mistakes on purpose. These jurors, theseprosecutors, and these defense lawyers were doing the bestthey could do with what they had. When these cases fallapart years later, looking back on them there were alwaystell tell warning signs. We’ve got those warning signs here!

In a sense this case asks you to look at the evidence in twodifferent ways. The first phase of this trial was about thefacts now. You, like these other jurors, were asked to do thebest you could with what you had. You did that. So did thelawyers, the prosecutor. We accept that verdict. We don’tquarrel with that. We have tremendous respect for what youare doing.

The punishment phase, in a way, asks a different questionwhen there isn’t proof beyond all doubt. At punishment youask about what the facts might be in 20 years. Is this a casewhere the facts will always be the same?

No new witnessesNo new testingNo new evidence

Or is there a chance we might find out that this awful crimedidn’t happen exactly the way the prosecutors think it did?

In 5, 10, 20 years…

13

What if we find out the father and son on there 4wheelers had it right. That Buddy wasn’t there.

What if a witness comes forward who was there? Whomatches the composite and the father and son canidentify in court?

What if a witness comes forward who knows a man witha dragon tattoo on his shoulder and who admits doingthis crime? (the man walking to Paiges saw the man inthe tank top with a dragon tattoo on the phone at thetime of the call to the Lynn house. That man wasn’tBuddy.)

What if the science of tire track comparison advancesto the point where it can be proven that Buddy’s tireswere not the ones that left the tracks at the scene?(they say some of the partial tire print castings are“consistent with” three of the Pontiac’s tires. Not thatthey must be the same tires but only that they might bethe same tires. They were Goodyears. Very commonbrand.)

What if we learn enough about the science of falseconfessions/ about police pressure tactics that wewould never consider a statement to be trustworthy thatwas the result of the Reid Technique/ the pressureprocess. (not videotaped when they could have)

What if it’s discovered that someone out there had amotive to kill Mr. Lavelle Lynn – – maybe Mr Lynnowed a debt, stole drugs from a supplier, or a violentdealer was afraid Mr. Lynn might turn state’s evidence.

14

And what if we find out a person with a motive to kill orrob drove an early 80’s, white, 2 door hatch back?

What if Mr Woodall’s .25 cal semi-automatic pistol isfound and it can be proven that that gun didn’t fire thebullets that killed Mr. Lynn and Mr. Van Allen?

What if we find that the witnesses who barteredbargained and sold their testimony, the snitches, toldyou a lie?

What if the science of CVSA advances to show withmathematical certainty that Buddy is innocent ofshooting? (that the science is believable and that Buddynever shot anyone)

What if it’s proven that Buddy really is the good personthat the evidence suggests -- you heard evidence thatBuddy is not violent, that he is a great father andhusband. The DA had the chance in rebuttal to paradein people to say this isn’t true. That Buddy is a violentfelon. A murderer, an armed robber, a thug. You didn’thear this because that evidence doesn’t exist. Theydidn’t call a single rebuttal witness.

Obviously somebody doesn’t have to fit a stereotype inorder to commit a horrible crime. But wouldn’t youexpect it? Isn’t the stereotype that most violent crimesare committed by violent people? Doesn’t this give youroom to know that maybe, just maybe, there might bemore to this story?

The bottom line is, are you willing to bet Buddy’s life that youknow everything that happened with crystal clarity or are you

15

willing to acknowledge that in doing your job you were simplydoing the best you could do with what you had? And if youleave any room for any of these what if questions, you mustsentence Buddy to life. If any of these what if’s turn out to betrue, it won’t matter once your sentence has been carriedout. Once Buddy is been strapped to a gurney and this lethalpoison has been dripped into his vein, killing him – it won’tmatter if a mistake was made. Obviously, you have to get itright today.

If you have any question at all about these what if’s, aboutthe evidence and lack of evidence, about the proof failing tobe beyond all doubt -- you are empowered to vote for lifebased on this residual doubt.

On the flip side of this, what if you are sitting there askingyourself, I don’t have any what if’s, we’re past that. Whyshould I give Buddy a break? Or, why should I give Buddy abreak simply because of these what ifs? A life sentence inprison is no break. It’s no favor. It’s a severe punishment.We’ll talk more about this in a few minutes.

16

If proof is perfect, still no death penalty in this case:NOT WORST OF THE WORST/ not all evil

Let’s imagine for a moment that this case had no what ifs init. That this case would definitely be the same 20 years fromnow as it is today. That the horrible crime was witnesses bya police officer, that a van full of nuns on a bird watching tripsaw the crimes and they videotaped it for you. That all thewitnesses were good citizens who came forward on theirown, who weren’t looking to trade their testimony for get outof jail cards. Witnesses of unquestioned integrity. That therewas a confession free from any “interrogation technique” andvideotaped in full. That this was a case where you knewwhat happened with crystal clarity. That Buddy pulled thetrigger on Mr. Lynn and Mr. Van Allen.

In that event the 1st trial would be about the crime. The 2nd

trial, where we are now, is about which of these threeharshest punishments fits -- not the crime -- but fits Buddy.

Mr. Higgins wants you to avoid getting to the heart of whatthe sentencing trial is all about. He told you that Buddydeserves to die for killing his uncle and Mr. Van Allen. Thatthe crime was horrible and he should pay with his life. Wedon’t deny it was horrible, terrible, tragic.

But this is not the case of a serial killer who kills for joy, apsychopath.

This is not the case of somebody who rapes and murderswomen.

17

This is not the case of a pedophile who kidnaps, tortures,and murders little innocent children.

That’s a different state of mind. That’s closer to pureevil.

It’s not a case of somebody who kills a police officer in theline of duty for no reason.

It’s not a case of somebody who has a terrible violent record,and who’s killed before.

It’s not a case where somebody bombs a building killingmany innocent people to make some type of politicalstatement.

That’s a different state of mind. That’s closer to pureevil.

Loss of life is often horrible. That’s not at issue anymore.You decided that _________ afternoon, all twelve of you,when you convicted Buddy. You said all that needs to besaid about how horrible the crime is.

But if that was enough to know what the punishment shouldbe, we wouldn’t be here. We’d of stopped ______ afternoonand imposed the punishment when you returned the verdict.What really have you learned about the crime since youreturned your verdict? Really? Nothing new.

18

We already knew that this was a terrible crime, murder. Byyour verdict, we already knew it one of the worst of allmurders, aggravated – two victims dead and a billfold taken.

Then the 2nd part of the trial, the sentencing trial, would beabout the person who committed it – this worst of the worstcrime. Is he one of the worst persons to commit this worst ofthe worst crimes? In other words, if he is all evil? If yes, thenyou want to seriously consider the death penalty.

But if he’s not all evil, if there is there any flicker ofhumanity left in him, you should sentence him to a lifepunishment so that the part of him responsible for thisterrible crime is severely punished, but the good in him,the humanity isn’t extinguished.

Is he all evil or not? I think we will all agree on this answer.But let’s look at Buddy’s whole life to answer this question.You promised in voir dire to take into account and considerhis whole life – his life now, his life growing up in BrantleyCounty, and his life that could be if you see fit to punish himwith a life penalty. To look at the mitigation presented.Mitigation, the judge will instruct, is any reason for you tovote for life.

MITIGATING THEMES

Why look at whole life? You punish people differently.You look at there life and background and punish themdifferently based on who they are, where they came from,and what values had been modeled for them.

You need to know, did a person have every opportunityin life? Did a person have more than his fair share of smartsor was he slower than other people? Did a person get the

19

type of parenting and guidance that would get themsuccessfully through life? Person who was helped all theway, who made good grades in school, who went to collegeon a scholarship? Did the person have every opportunity andthen one day wake up and decide to go into a life of crime?Or are we talking about somebody like Buddy Woodallwhose life had challenges, hurdles, successes and failures.That’s an appropriate thing to think about.

Of course, we’re not saying that because his life waslike it was, that you can go out and commit crime. You can’t.We’re not saying that because he had the type life he hadthat what you’ve convicted him of is OK. It’s not. But it doesprovide us separate reasons of mercy and compassion andmercy to vote for a life sentence. It does tell us somethingabout which of these three awful, severe, and extremepunishments is most appropriate. It does tell us if BuddyWoodall is truly 100% evil or whether his is a person withhumanity.

THAT’s an easy question. Just take a look at Buddythe FATHER.

Buddy is not perfect. But he loves his sons. He hasbeen and is an amazingly good father in spite of beingincarcerated.

You heard a lot about what his life was before hisarrest. He was an involved father. Played ball with his sonsevery night.

You heard from his sister in law about the weeklysoftball games (they’d let the kids all hit homeruns story)

20

You heard about the family going mud boggin in hisjeep. (the story of the time they got stuck).

That parenting is mitigating, it is a separate reason topunish him with a life sentence.

CHRISTOPHER. Buddy is a loving and attentive fatherto all his sons. His two biological sons and his step son.Let’s talk for a minute about Buddy’s relationship withChristopher. Remember when Buddy and Kristy were youngkids and she became pregnant with Jason. They ended upbreaking up, she took up with a new man, and Buddy ran offto join the Marines. Kristy and her new man – who shemarried – had one child together, Christopher. That marriagedidn’t last long as Christopher’s father became abusing,threatening to kill Kristy. Buddy treats Christopher just likeJason and Sean. He loves them all unconditionally. Do youremember when Christopher told Jason that he thoughtJason and Sean were loved more than him. (Playstation andSega story). Jason and Christopher realized Buddy lovedthem the same. He didn’t have to do this. It’s clear he hasbeen a better father to Christopher than the biological. Didhe do this because he was evil? Of course not. He did thisout of love. Christopher is a separate reason to return a lifepunishment.

PARENTING WHILE INCARCERATED. Even lockedup Buddy has tried hard to be the best father he can be. Youheard about Jason’s weight gain after Buddy’s arrest.Internalizes his pain. He now wants to take control of hisbody, his life. About his diet. About being scared to playfootball.

21

He is still playing a positive role. It’s not easy – on theboys, on Kristy or on Buddy. But, these boys know theirfather loves them, supports them, cheers for them. They lovehim and they need him, even though he’ll be locked away.They need him alive and in their lives. Again, Buddy’s effortto be the best dad he can be from jail is a separatemitigating factor.

GOOD HUSBAND. Buddy also is a good husband. Heloves Kristy and she loves him. They have loved each otherfor more than half their lives. Like many young couples, theyhad some ups and downs, some growing up to do. But theyworked hard to provide a good home for their family. A homenot of angry beatings but of calm discipline, a home not offilth but of cleanliness, a home not of discord but of love.

CHILDHOOD

You know what’s remarkable about this. Most of uslearn how to parent, how to build a good home life, bylearning the lessons our parents modeled for us. But whenyou take a step back and consider young Buddy’s childhood,would you have predicted that Buddy would be doing as wellas a father and a husband as he was doing?

You know what I mean. Mr. and Ms Woodall loveBuddy. They care for him. He loves them. But this was not aLeave It to Beaver or the Cosby’s type of house. This was ahouse with more struggles than most.

We all have our own unique human HUMANFRAILITIES – different strengths and weaknesses. Mr andMs Woodall are no different.

22

Mr. Woodall had a hard time keeping a job. He dranktoo much and too regularly. He lost a job with the Ga ForestyCommission because he had marijuana in his system.

Ms. Woodall has struggled to. She was abused as achild. She had her ear sliced in a fight with he brother Mr.Lavelle Lynn. Can you imagine your uncle slicing yourmother’s ear or physically mistreating her in any way? Shealways felt like the outcast of her family. Never fullyaccepted, never fully loved. Not to make excuses, but thisimpacted them, their ability to parent.

They tried but they struggled. They were maybe tooquick to beat their kids and too slow in stopping. DFACS wascalled out on them once.

Buddy’s special ed teacher, the Reverend and his wifeall testified about how the house was kept – dirty, beerbottles strewn all around.

I’m not saying this was a house without love, it wasn’t.This was a house with love, with laughter. But it was a housewith more struggles than most. A house poorer than most.Buddy’s younger brothers Matt and David both struggledwith drug problems and dropped out of high school. David isdoing pretty well now but Matt continues to struggle. He wasin behavior disorder classes in high school and sufferedclinical depression. Buddy’s older sister Charis has alsostruggled.

As for Buddy, he was suicidal in high school and placedin special ed for behavior disorder.

This was a house with more struggles than most. Mrand Ms Woodall loved their kids but it seems obvious that

23

they struggled as parents at times. And of course what otherinfluences were around -- right across the street lived theiruncle. Mr. Lynn, who was dealing drugs and slicing theirmother’s ear.

I am pointing out what had been modeled for Buddy.Again, I’m not blaming anyone for why we are here. Itdoesn’t excuse anything. But it does make it surprising thathe was able to create a home for his sons that was muchmore stable than the one he grew up in. That’s mitigating.

Prison adaptability

Let’s talk for a minute about Buddy in the future if youreturn a life sentence. What type of prisoner will he be?Stated differently, must we kill him or can prison handle him?

Prison is designed to handle all types of violentinmates. If an inmate is causing any problem, they have thetraining, resources and facilities to handle them – all the waydown to a 24 hour a day lockdown. That is there job andthey do it.

If Buddy is sentenced to life, he will serve his time in amaximum security prison, maybe Reidsville. Assuming hefollows all their rules, he will have a cellmate. They will sharean 6x10 cell, the size of a king sized bed. His cell can beseen into by guards and other inmates. The metal toilet is inthe corner. There is no privacy. You wake up at the time theprison decides. You eat when the prison decides. You eatwhat the prison decides. The lights are turned on and offwhen the prison decides. He will not have a TV. Make nomistake, Buddy will never see a country club prison.Maximum security in GA is hard time: Buddy will be servingvery hard time.

24

Over time, Buddy can earn some minimal privileges. Hecan earn the right to have more than 1 hour per day outsidethe cell. He can work. He can pay restitution. He can earnvisitation.

The best way to evaluate an inmate is to look at hispast – his record in jail. In a highly structured environmentlike jail, Buddy has been a model inmate. The Sergeant fromthe Glynn County detention center. You better believe shedidn’t like having to be a witness. She is employed by theSheriff and she didn’t like having to be a witness against theDistrict Attorney’s office. But she did. She is verycourageous. She told you that Buddy has never hurt anyone,has never caused any trouble, and has never even beenreprimanded. He has been in the Glynn County jail for morethan 4 years and he’s been a model inmate.

Don’t kill him. A maximum security prison will handlehim easily. And a maximum security prison will punish himseverely. This prison adaptability is a separate mitigatingfactor, the law empowers you to return a life verdict basedsolely on this factor or in combination with other factors.

Also, society can be protected by sentencing him to lifein maximum security. We don’t need to eliminate him fromthe human race. You don’t have to kill him to protect thiscommunity. This lack of future danger is a separatemitigating factor. This factor alone allows you to return a lifepunishment.

Sincere in his faith

While we’re on this topic, let’s talk briefly about Buddy’sfaith. According to the two Reverends, Buddy is sincere

25

about his faith in Jesus Christ. He grew up in the church.The reverends have visited him regularly since he’s beenarrested. Buddy’s not perfect, but his heart is open to God.The Ministers visits have a positive influence on Buddy.

They believe his faith is sincere. I don’t mean to soundflip, but Buddy is going to need all the faith he can muster todeal with the punishment we’re asking for.

If you sentence Buddy to life, Buddy will be around a lotof inmates who will be getting out and returning home totown all over Georgia and to Glynn County. Wouldn’t yourather these young men be exposed to Christianity whilethey are in prison? My prayer is that you will sentence Buddyto a life punishment, that he will continue to grow in his faith,and that he can have a positive influence on the lives ofthese other inmates who will be getting out.

I hope I am not being overly optimistic, God has a prettygood track record of putting sinners to work for him.

God has used Saul/Paul – murdered Christians.God has used King David – murdered Basheeba’s

husband.Sinners can be punished and still be redeemed.

Buddy’s faith is another reason for a life punishment.

Execution Impact.

The judge will tell you can consider execution impactevidence as mitigation. This is about Jason, Christopher andSean. Also about Kristy. Mr and Ms Woodall. Kristy’s mom.It’s about the impact Buddy’s execution would have on anyof the people that love him. But mostly about the boys.

26

Imagine what it would be like to if your Dad served a lifesentence in prison. How different our relationships would be.But we would still have a relationship. As long as our dad’shearts are beating and there lungs are breathing and therebrains are working, they are our dads and they will guide usand nurture us and love us.

With a life sentence, Buddy can still do that.

What happens to those boys if you return a deathsentence. Buddy will be executed. You saw there faces onthe videotape when Buddy left the room – they were in pain.If their father is executed, you better believe a part of themwill also die that night – a part of their innocence, a part oftheir goodness, a part of their humanity. You can return averdict that punishes Buddy severely while doing the leastharm to these beautiful boys.

27

RELATIVE CULPABILITY

The judge will instruct you on relative culpability. Thatyou can consider as mitigation, as a reason to return a lifesentence, that Buddy’s role in the crime was lessor thananother participant.

There is a real question about whether Buddy shotanybody. The police thought there were at least two peopleinvolved, two guns and of course two victims. They surmisedBuddy must have shot one of the victims with one gun andhis brother in law shot the other victim with another gun.However, the medical examiner who did the autopsy said thephysical evidence is consistent with one gun being used.One gun means one shooter.

You obviously believed Buddy’s statement to the policewas at least partially accurate or we wouldn’t be here now.You would have acquitted Buddy. Buddy told the police thathe didn’t shoot either victim.

The Computer Voice Stress Analyzer completelysupports this contention. On the improperly phrasedquestion of “were you there,” the machine said Buddy wasdeceptive when he denied being there.

But, on the key question of “did you shoot either Mr.Van Allen or Mr. Lynn, Buddy said NO.” He passed! Themachine said he was telling the truth. If this machine is right,this is a strong reason to vote for a life sentence. If you’renot totally sold on the CVSA, instead of absolutely right it justmight be right, this is still a reason to return a life punishmentverdict.

28

The prosecutor argues that you can’t believe thismachine at all. Why not?

The defense didn’t buy it or hire people to give him thetest.

The CVSA is being used by law enforcement, securityand intelligence groups around the world. It’s beingused in Guantanamo Bay to help our intelligenceleaders find and bust up Al Quaida.

The law enforcement leaders in Glynn Countyresearched the CVSA, studied the CVSA, bought theCVSA with taxpayers money, sent officers to be trainedin how to accurately run the CVSA.

If the CVSA is really nothing more than snake oil as MrHiggins argues, if he was being honest, his boss wouldhave told the police department not to buy it, to quiteusing it, to not subject any person to it in any criminalinvestigation. None of that has been done. The DistrictAttorney was watching Buddy’s CVSA test through adouble mirror at the police department. You betterbelieve they believe in it.

Taken together, the CVSA evidence, supported by themedical examiners testimony about possibly one gun beingused, means that there was only one shooter and theshooter was NOT Buddy Woodall. In determining the propersentence for Buddy, you can consider that his role was lessthan the shooters. The judge will call this relative culpability.

It is not an excuse for a crime, not a legal defense.He’s legally just as guilty as if he had been the shooter. Butfor sentencing, it’s proper for you to take this into account

29

when deciding how to punish Buddy. The fact that he didn’tshoot either of the victims is a fact that cuts in favor of a lifeimprisonment sentence. He shouldn’t get the same or worsesentence than the trigger man.

30

Aggravation

Let me turn for a moment to a couple of the things Mr.Higgins is asking you to consider in aggravation of thisterrible crime. First of all, the judge will tell you thataggravating circumstances are those that you find increasethe guilt or enormity of the crime or add to it’s injuriousconsequences. This means makes the crime worse or thepain of the crime worse. If all 12 of you unanimously agreethat what the state offers is aggravating, you can consider itas an aggravation circumstance when deciding if the deathpenalty the only appropriate punishment. If any one of youdoesn’t think it adds to the guilt or pain of the crime, none ofyou may use it in making your decision.

Certainly there are some aggravating circumstances inthis case. We’ve never disputed that. But look at what Mr.Higgins asks you to use to decide for the ultimate penalty.Mr. Higgins asks you to consider an AWOL from theMarines, lack of remorse, and a misdemeanor DUIconviction.

First let’s talk about the DUI. He pled guilty to amisdemeanor driving under the influence. It was a mistake.He accepted the consequences. Thank goodness there wasnot a wreck and nobody was hurt. Is this misdemeanor reallysomething that adds to the pain of this terrible and seriouscrime? Does it add to the enormity of the offense or increasehis guilt? It is a mark on his record for sure. But it is notaggravating in this case.

Lack of Remorse. – REMORSE Acceptance ofverdict

31

By virtue of your verdict, responsibility has fallensquarely on Buddy’s shoulders. We didn’t like the verdict.But we accepted it. We respect it.

The prosecutor argued that one reason for you to killBuddy Woodall is he lacks remorse. That he isn’t acceptingresponsibility. We have accepted it. We have respected it.

Take away the fact for just a second that Buddymaintained his innocence. How is somebody who has beenconvicted of double murder supposed to act? Theprosecutor acts as though he can read Buddy Woodall’smind, read his body language.

The prosecutor can’t know what’s going throughBuddy’s mind, the sorrow in his heart, the pain he knows thistrial has caused his family.

How is he supposed to act? Would it help you if Buddycried? If I thought that were the case, I’d have stuck Buddywith a pen under the table or said something hurtful to him tomake him very upset. I didn’t do that. If I had done that, theprosecutor would have stood here and argued to you thatthose are tears of convenience, tears about getting caught,not tears of real remorse.

How would you have him behave in court? How wouldMr Higgins have Buddy act? Don’t hold Buddy’s demeanoragainst him. He did exactly as we asked him to do. Hisbehavior, his courtroom presence – exactly what we askedhim to do. We have accepted your verdict.

That’s not an aggravating circumstance.

32

MARINESNow let’s talk about the Marines – his special ed

teacher was thrilled. She thought this was the only way outof Brantley County for Buddy. You remember she was sodisappointed when she found out Buddy came back home.

Boot camp at Paris Island – successfullycompleted.

Tried to get stationed in Albany GA or SouthCarolina to be closer to his new son Jason.Instead sent to Camp Pendleton California.

You heard his Sergeant, now retired from 20 yearsin the USMC, who without a subpoena came allthe way from Spain to tell you what a great MarineBuddy was.

In 1995, Kristy and Buddy rekindled thereromance. Buddy came home from leave and theyrealized the love they shared was still there.Buddy asked Kristy to bring Jason andChristopher and to move to Camp Pendleton withhim.

Kristy is a Brantley County girl through andthrough. It her roots, her family. California was toofar away. There is no blame to put on her aboutthat.

Buddy had a difficult decision. Go back to theMarines and be away from the love of his life andhis boys OR stay with them. I’m not saying hemade the right decision. You can decide that foryourself. I’ve thought 100 times, would we even be

33

here if Buddy had stayed in the Marines. If he’dbeen transferred closer to home. If Kristy hadmoved. Would his life have gone in a completelydifferent direction if he’d continued to build up alife in the Marine Corp upon the foundation hestarted at Paris Island? He made a choice andwe’ll never know.

If it had been my choice. I don’t know what I’d do.Maybe I’d have gone back and process out as fastas possible, or asked again to transfer to theSouth. He did what he did. He went AWOL. He didit for his family.

To get back to aggravation for a second, how inthe world does this AWOL in 1995 increase hisguilt here or add to the pain caused by this crime?It doesn’t. It’s a red herring.

Frankly, completing Paris Island, the good time heserved in the Marine Corp, and the choice hemade to leave are all mitigating circumstances.Reasons he is not the worst of the worst, not allevil. Reasons for a life sentence, not aggravation.

To make matters worse, the prosecutor told you inhis opening that the AWOL was a desertion. I trustwe cleared that up for you. The technical legaldistinction isn’t so important. The practicaldistinction is. AWOL is when you don’t return tobase when you are supposed to. Desertion iscompletely different; it is leaving an importantassignment in time of conflict. Leaving yourbrothers and sisters in arms in danger. Buddydidn’t do that, he wasn’t convicted of that, Mr

34

Higgins knows better and he should be ashamedfor playing loose -- playing the type games thatunfortunately the public has come to expect fromlawyers -- when so much is at stake here in thiscourtroom.

Take the death verdict home

Let’s consider for a second what happens if you dowhat Mr. Higgins urges you to do.

Imagine a couple of years from now you read in thepaper that Lecester Buddy Woodall is to be executed thatnight. Imagine your neighbor coming up to you in the yardand saying, “well I believe in the death penalty too. It mayhave been hard but I’m sure you did the right thing. Tell meabout it?”

Well, he killed his uncle and the uncle’s employee. I’mnot sure we know the whole of the story to this day.

Oh that’s terrible but why the death penalty?

Had he killed before? NO.

Did he have a terrible record? No, actually the unclehad a worse record than Buddy.

Was he some sort of pshcopath? No, the prosecutorwas very thorough and I’m sure he would have given uspsychological evidence like that if he had it.

Did he abuse his children? No, turns out that otherthan this arrest he was a pretty good Dad and even was apretty good dad while locked up. He kept trying to help his

35

wife guide, steer and nurture the boys. He even treated hisstep son as if he was his own flesh and blood.

Did he take the stand and lie to you? No, he didn’t.

He must have had every chance in life, been bornwith a silver spoon, highly intelligent, and just woke upone day and decided to be evil? No, he did have a spoon– maybe metal or maybe plastic, but definitely wasn’t bornwith a silver spoon. He overcame some hurdles in his life.He was doing OK.

Was he Godless? He was a man who committed ahorrible crime but his preachers believed him to be a sincereman of faith. A Christian.

Were you afraid he would harm somebody in prisonor escape? Not at all. No doubt the DOC was up to the job.And Buddy was a model prisoner. In fact, if I had beenworried about that I could have sentenced him to life withparole. There is no doubt he would have woken up everymorning and tried to be the best inmate in the DOC in hopesthat one day, years from now, with his perfect record, hemight earn his release and spend his last few years outsideof prison, on parole, but with his family.

Well the law must have left you no choice? Actuallyno. the law is always satisfied with life.

Well you must have done it for the victims? I praythey are doing better. I pray the execution of Buddy is goingto bring them some type of closure. And this execution isn’tgoing to bring the victim’s home again. In truth, thisexecution may do them more harm than good by reopeningall those wounds. In all honesty, they weren’t doing great

36

before this crime, but they were getting by. Since it was akilling within a family and of a family friend, there werevictims were on all sides of the courtroom. I still worry aboutthe victim’s sister, Buddy’s mama. I hope she’ll be strongenough. And I worry about his wife. What an awful load tohave to bear. But most of all I worry about Buddy’s boys.Despite what he did, he loved those boys and those boysloved him. It sure wouldn’t surprise me if from prison he wastrying to coach his boys about listening to their mama, aboutstudying hard in school, about dates and love and life. Thismust be the hardest day of their life. I hope a part of themdoesn’t die tonight when Buddy dies. I’m really afraid it will.

How is your neighbor going to look at you?It will be too late. You must get it right today.

37

Up until now we’ve talked basically about one veryimportant question – I asked it about 10 different ways –must you kill Buddy? Do you have to kill Buddy? If you don’thave to, it’s a needless killing and we just shouldn’t do it. Toanswer that, we’ve talked at length about the law that guidesyou, about the proof issues that arose from the evidence,about Buddy, his family. My biggest fear in the world rightnow is that I’ve forgotten something that would be importantto you. I hope I’ve given you all you need to answer thatquestion. I hope all twelve of you will answer that questionNO. We do not need to return a sentence of death.

Now, for our final minutes together, I want to ask you asecond question. It’s a little different than the first. A morepersonal question. It’s less a question about the cime, aboutBuddy, and more a question about who you are. I am goingto talk to you a bit from my perspective but it is yourperspective that matters, not mine.

And I’m a little nervous about asking it. But it’s acritically important question. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

Can you really imagine being in the situation you are inand having Jesus Christ say “I think we should executeBuddy Woodall.” That’s absurd.

Your faith, your religious beliefs – it’s your views notmine, please don’t think I’m imposing my views on you. It’syour views that matter. Your religious faith is the mostimportant thing that you bring to any important decision. Thisis the most important decision of your life.

38

In Matthew 5:7, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tellsus “blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

I said at the beginning of this closing time together thatwe would talk about mercy at the end. We are begging foryour mercy. We are not asking for your forgiveness. Whatyou’ve convicted Buddy of – we can’t ask for yourforgiveness.

What you’ve convicted Buddy of, taking two people’slives, he was not merciful.

The real question is, what are you going to do?

There is a time when we try to bring violence to a close.There is a time when we try to be better than the things

we are condemning.There is a time when we don’t want to say, well

because somebody did something wrong, I am going to do itto them.

When I make important decisions, when I am in thatsituation, I try to think about in the terms “if I am not merciful,can I ever expect to get mercy myself?”

This is a time when we need to remind ourselves, “if we everexpect to get mercy, then we have to give it.”

This is an important decision.This literally is a life or death decision.This is a decision you have to live with the rest of your life.[sorry for the guilt trip]

39

Do you think anyone has ever been on his or her death bedand thought, “I really wish I’d been less merciful in this life?”

Maybe people wish they had been stricter with their child.That’s not the same thing. Being strict with your child is sothey grow up in a way that you and they can be proud of, sothey can learn lessons to help them in life. You can be strictand merciful. This isn’t about being strict.

This is about punishment. You can severely punish Buddyby sentencing him to life with parole and be merciful.

You can severely be punish him to life with parole and stillbe merciful to Kristy, to Sean Christopher and Jason, to hismother and father.

I stand here not as some lawyer, not some guy doing ajob. I am standing here because Buddy’s family asked me to.Because Buddy asked me to. I stand here now proudly andhumbly, and beg you to sentence Buddy to life with the oneday possibility of parole.

At the end of the day, when you ask yourself, “Must I killBuddy Woodall?” Look at these faces, I pray the answer isclear. Once this answer is clear, please don’t let anyone talkyou out of your individual moral verdict.

Please sentence Buddy to a life sentence. Godspeed.

40

We’re making an individual moral decision here aboutwhether to kill a person. This is a terrible crime. But is thisperson the worst of the worst? Is this Ted Bundy, a lawschool graduate, who went out and raped and killed womenin 3 or 4 different states? He got the death penalty.Somebody who had tons of smarts, somebody withknowledge and ability. Somebody who was born in the mostfertile soil. To a solid family of means who was given everyopportunity to excel in life. Somebody who was taught all theright values.

This isn’t Tim McVeigh, who went out and went war onthe United States, killing 168 men, women and children in

41

the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. To make mattersworse, it was an undeclared war. Those parents of thechildren never had a warning that Tim McVeigh was coming.Tim McVeigh came from a good home where he was taughtall the good values.

All of us, to some extent – and I underline that, areproducts of our upbringing. Maybe not hundred percent, butnot zero percent either. That is something appropriate andimportant to take into consideration. None of us arecompletely self-made. All of us – every person on the juryand every person in the courtroom – all of us were helpedalong the way. We were helped by a parent, a sister, ateacher who took a special interest in us, a boss, a minister,by a friend. All of us have been influenced and helped byothers.

Just plain mean? That notion, if you buy it, denies theredemptive power of God Almighty, who can change thecoldest, hardest and meanest heart. Buddy’s heart isn’t thecoldest or hardest, his is a troubled heart. A kid that foughtthrough many difficulties. A notion of cold, hard, mean heartmeans a heart permanently fixed. It denies there issomething in the human spirit that people can respond to.Life and faith are journeys. It is an unfinished job. It’s a longjourney.

IF NO DP HERE, THEN WHEN?

42

“If we don’t give the death penalty in this case, thentake it off the books!” Don’t believe that. Think about it.Think about it now. Think about our own commonexperience. Think about the cases in this community, in thisstate, across the South. Think about the tragedies and thekillings.

As the judge told you, no murder requires the deathpenalty. No case has to be satisfied with the death penalty.No automatic death penalty. We must look at everything.

When I was in school, a number of African Americanchildren were killed in Atlanta. There was no death penalty.When Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis, there was nodeath penalty. When Medgar Evers was shot at his home,there was no death penalty. And when a women from Albanywas bombed and killed going to the Olympics in Atlanta, atthe Centennial Park, by Eric Rudolph, there was no deathpenalty.

Don’t let anybody tell you there has to be a deathpenalty. No case has to have a death penalty. The deathpenalty may be considered in some cases, but you look ateverything -- his life, background, how this person got towhere he is in life, his road in life, and your own mercy andcompassion – you look to everything before making theultimate decision. And, the law is always satisfied with a lifepenalty.

43

(Homecoming -- First date story)

44

(high school sweethearts)

Pregnancy – Buddy thrilled and Kristy scared

Engagement and breakupNo carTwo jobsLittle moneyNever see each otherOlder man living near KristyBreakup – terribly painful. They were so youngand both needed some time to become adults.

Birth of Jason

45

DELIBERATION

You may be asked to listen to other jurors share theirviews, but once you have searched your soul and come upwith your sentence for Buddy, you are done.

The law never asks you to give up your vote or to doharm to your conscience. In fact, the law is satisfied if youcome up with different verdicts as to the sentence. If some ofyou say life with parole, some day the death penalty, andsome pay life without. This isn’t a failure. In a regular trial,the jurors are called hung. Hung may suggest some type offailure in the process – failure by the evidence or by thejurors. Not the case in a sentencing trial. This isn’t a failure.Far from it, this is exactly the type result that the sentencinglaw anticipate and is satisfied with. Everyone has there ownmoral reaction to facts and events. The sentencing lawanticipates and embraces that you may agree to disagree.You can and should proudly and immediately send a noteout that you have reached different verdicts. In fact, you cansend notes out one at a time announcing your individualverdicts.

For that matter, if people are ganging up on somebodyand trying to get them to change their mind, that goes

against the law, SEND A NOTE. You may send outnotes about anything you want. If you want a smoke break,send a note. If you want pizza, send a note. If the forepersonwon’t send a note, send a note about that. I don’t mean tomake light of what you have in front of you. It is very serious.If you have any questions or need any assistance, send anote and the Judge will do his best to accommodate you.