Commutation for Patty Prewitt

5A. An analysis of the trial proceedings and the opponent's case, including distorted information and left out facts.

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Memorandum

DATE: AUGUST 30, 2008
TO: GOVERNOR BLUNT
FROM: JANE AIKEN, PROF. OF LAW
RE: PATTY PREWITT


I have reviewed the trial transcript and the witness statements to assess Patty Prewitt’s case for commutation of sentence. I note that the trial transcript reveals a poorly prepared case both by the prosecution in presenting evidence that could convict beyond a reasonable doubt and by the defense in cogently presenting information that could have caused this case to result in an acquittal. Even assuming Mrs. Prewitt’s guilt, a review of the police investigation, the trial transcript and evidence that has since been revealed suggests that had this information been before the court, a sentence of life without parole would have been considered excessive. Because there are no remedies at law for Mrs. Prewitt, this case is ripe for commutation.

I deal here with an apparently influential letter sent by Kevin Hughes, the chief police investigator in the case, to Glenn Norton who was at that time (2001) Chief Legal Counsel for Governor Holden. In this letter, Hughes argues vigorously that Patty Prewitt was guilty of the murder of her husband and should not be granted clemency. Kevin Hughes letter is striking due to its vituperative tone and multiple, unproven assertions. It was sent 17 years after his investigation of Bill Prewitt’s homicide. Hughes must have investigated hundreds of cases since 1984. Why is this case so personal to him? He mentions that twenty-five investigators helped him examine the case and that they interviewed hundreds of people. He then purports to report the result of that investigation. In his recounting, he does not mention several irregularities in his investigation that raise questions about the murder investigation and suggest that this “thorough” investigation may not have been so thorough.

From the very outset of Kevin Hughes’ investigation, he appeared intent on charging Mrs. Prewitt with the murder, even ignoring evidence to the contrary. In his letter, he fails to mention that when he did a gun powder residue test on Mrs. Prewitt’s hands that none was found. This would point toward someone else as the shooter. Shortly after the jury convicted Patty Prewitt for the murder of her husband, Mrs. Ethel Juanita Stephens emerged and told the story of seeing an unknown man in a white car stopped on the highway near the Prewitt’s house at or around the time of the murder and behaving very suspiciously. She had told Sheriff Charles Norman (for whom Hughes worked as an investigator) a day or two after the shooting about seeing the car and her suspicions that the man might have been involved in the murder. This report was consistent with the statements of two of the Prewitt daughters who testified that they heard an intruder and had seen what looked like a flashlight flickering under the bottom of the basement door. That door was open when the police arrived at the house. Despite this clear lead, neither Hughes nor his team followed up. Further, they did not inform the defense team of this exculpatory evidence so that they could do their own investigation.

The irregularities that raise questions about this investigation do not stop there. Hughes also fails to mention that the crime scene was not secured, that the investigators destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence by trying to pry the door where the intruder apparently entered, thus making it impossible to determine which pry marks were caused by the intruder and which by the police. The investigators dusted for fingerprints in only four places throughout the whole house and failed to dust the chest of drawers where the murderer got the rifle used in the killing. Nor did the team dust the metal breaker box for fingerprints where the power had been cut off before the killing. Further this investigative team did not attempt to collect hair samples to determine if there might be a clue to the identity of the intruder. Hughes reports his conclusion that Mrs. Prewitt is an unrepentant killer. These facts, had they been included in his letter, might have dampened its intensity, much as they might have dampened the intensity of the jury.

Hughes’ letter is also rife with his version of facts without any proof. He asserts as fact that “[s]he engaged in hundreds of sexual liaisons, sometimes three or four per day.” How could Hughes know that? Indeed, how could that be even close to true? Mrs. Prewitt worked full-time in a business, cared for five children who were active in extra curricular activities, owned and operated a small farm with livestock and garden and was an active participant in community work. His letter suggests that she led a lavish lifestyle, yet the description of her living circumstances at the time of Mr. Prewitt’s death, belie this characterization. Such willingness to pepper his letter with wild and untrue character assassinations suggests that one should not rely on anything Hughes says. He discusses the many witnesses who he said had had sexual relations with Mrs. Prewitt while she was married but fails to mention that any alleged liaisons occurred many years before the murder of Bill Prewitt and while the couple was separated. He also fails to mention that each of these men had independent reasons to testify falsely against Patty Prewitt. It appears two of them received deals that made them inclined toward the prosecution; another had a personal vendetta against Mrs. Prewitt. Unfortunately, we have no documentation of this. What we do have is more evidence of the imprint of Kevin Hughes’ zealousness. According to an investigation done by The Riverfront Times in April of 2004, one of the witnesses who testified at trial that Mrs. Prewitt had offered him money to kill her husband reported in a signed statement eight months after the conviction that Deputy Hughes had “threatened to throw him in jail if he did not cooperate with the police.” Another witness gave one statement during the investigation but by the time of trial, the witness signed a much more detailed statement, prepared by Hughes, in which the witness stated that Mrs. Prewitt wanted to kill her husband for the insurance money, a fact completely lacking in his initial interview.

Hughes fails to mention that one of the key interrogations of Mrs. Prewitt used to paint her as a lascivious woman out to get her husband, was conducted by Hughes and recalled by him on the witness stand. He taped fifteen minutes of this twelve plus hour interrogation but did not record any more of the interrogation; he did not procure from Mrs. Prewitt a signed statement confirming the substance of the conversation. This key trial testimony was drawn completely from Hughes memory.

Hughes suggests that one of the motives for the crime was to collect on Mrs. Prewitt’s husband’s life insurance, leaving the impression that there would be a windfall for her upon his death. He does not mention that the family owed debt, accumulated in the course of running their lumber yard business, far in excess of the value of Mr. Prewitt’s life insurance. More importantly, he fails to mention that the Prewitts had recently changed their insurance policies, substantially reducing the insurance for Bill and increasing the insurance on Patty. At the time of his murder, Bill had two policies, each for about $50,000, that were about to lapse. As established in a “Sheriff Departments Investigative Report”(02-20-84), the whole life accumulator policy would have stayed in effect by premiums paid from the policy for 7-10 years. The premium on the term life policy was $12/month. Yet Hughes asserts: “He (Bill Prewitt) could not afford the premium due to Mrs. Prewitt’s spending habits.” He concludes that Mrs. Prewitt killed her husband because “the life insurance clock running out.” Hughes is asserting that she had to kill her husband then, because otherwise she would have had to come up with $12. The financial motive is also belied by the facts. If Patty Prewitt wanted to gain financially from the murder of her husband, why would she allegedly kill him after the insurance on his life was substantially reduced?

Kevin Hughes’ letter suggests that this case was open and shut. If so, why did the prosecutor offer Mrs. Prewitt a plea bargain that could have resulted in Mrs. Prewitt’s release after 6-7 years? Such an offer is inconsistent with Hughes’ picture of indisputable evidence that Patty Prewitt was a cold-blooded killer. The offer of the plea bargain means that the state believed its interest in deterrence and retribution would have been served by incarcerating Mrs. Prewitt for 6–7 years. She has now served 22. Fifteen years would seem to be an unreasonable additional punishment for having a 4-day trial. Mrs. Prewitt declined the offer because she was innocent and trusted the justice system. Unfortunately her faith in the system was misplaced.

The trial transcript shows that there were numerous flaws in the trial process: during jury selection, excusing for cause all those on the jury who would have trouble sentencing a woman with five children to life without possibility of parole; a defense counsel who failed to counter inaccurate expert testimony which many jurors said was the key to their determination of guilt; a bailiff who misspoke and told a divided jury that they had to try harder and decide and jurors who believed that otherwise they would be forced to stay overnight; and other such irregularities,

Hughes uses Mrs. Prewitt’s insistence on her innocence as a reason to deny her clemency. He suggests that she is a manipulative woman who has used her children. How is an innocent woman expected to act? Failure to have remorse about a murder she did not commit is appropriate for an innocent woman. Mrs. Prewitt has maintained her innocence for 24 years. Perhaps she is innocent. The irregularities detailed here certainly make that a serious question. Nevertheless, a commutation of Mrs. Prewitt’s sentence does not require a finding of innocence. These same irregularities, the flawed investigation, the failure to pursue leads or collect evidence that could have exonerated Mrs. Prewitt, the prosecutor’s pleas offer and the problems at trial, suggest that her sentence should have been significantly less, thus justifying a commutation to time served. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Herrera v. Collins: “Executive clemency has provided the “fail safe” in our criminal justice system. K. Moore, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest 131 (1989). It is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible.” 506 U.S. 390, 415 (1993).

The Hughes letter apparently has been influential previously to stop what might have been clemency for Patty Prewitt. One man’s demonstrably faulty and biased account should not bar commutation of the sentence of a woman who has already served 22 years in prison, far beyond the time that she would have served had she accepted the proffered plea bargain. On the basis of her conduct while incarcerated, the virtual certainty that she will not re-offend, of having acquired skills while incarcerated that will allow her to earn a living and the 22 years she has served, Patty Prewitt has earned and deserves commutation of sentence. As this is written (August, 2008), Mrs. Prewitt has recently celebrated her 59th birthday. I urge you to act so that Patty Prewitt’s 60th birthday will be spent with her family.

If you have questions about this memorandum, please feel free to contact me at Georgetown Law School 202-662-9580 or by cell 301-300-0285.