Don Campbell - Detective Sergeant - The State Rests

For Viewing Only
Forum rules
Since some of the different parts of the trial transcript are extremely large, posting has been disabled in them. Use the Baniszewski Trial Discussions for postable topics.
 
Posts: 139  Images: 550  Joined: August 8th, 2010, 7:35 am
Location: Springfield, Illinois

Don Campbell - Detective Sergeant - The State Rests

Postby admin » October 31st, 2010, 6:22 pm

JURY PRESENT AND SEATED.

DON CAMPBELL , a witness called on behalf of the State of Indiana,
being duly sworn by the Court, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. LEROY NEW,
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

Q. State your name to the jury, sir.

A. Don Campbell.

Q. Are you the same Officer Don Campbell who previously testified before this jury?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You testified you talked to Coy Hubbard October 27, 1965?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You previously testified you took a written statement from Mr. Coy Hubbard?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At that time did you form an opinion as to whether he was sane or insane?

A. Yes, sir, just an opinion.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. Well, he was normal. I would say, he was sane.

MR. NEW: Cross.

THE COURT: Defendant Gertrude Baniszewski, any cross?

MR. ERBECKER: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski?

MR. RICE: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard?

CROSS EXAMINATION,
QUESTIONS BY MR. FORREST BOWMAN, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS,
COY HUBBARD AND JOHN STEPHAN BANISZEWSKI

Q. You are the same Sgt. Campbell who testified about taking a statement, are you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is your assignment, sir?

A. I am assigned to the Juvenile Branch.

Q. Do you know Sgt. Gentry?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you work with him from time to time?

A. On occasion.

Q. Did you really form that opinion back then?

A. As normal - an opinion, yes.

Q. You considered it?

A. Yes.

Q. You thought about it, made a decision, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Way back then did you think about it?

A. I beg pardon?

Q. What made you think about it?

A. The circumstances around the incident.

Q. What is the extent of your education, sir?

A. Just high school.

Q. Can you explain the difference, if any, between hallucination and delusion?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know whether or not acute dissociative reaction is neuroticism?

A. No.

Q. Do you know how many types of psychoneurotic reactions there are?

A. No.

Q. Do you know how many forms of schizophrenic there are?

A. No.

Q. Do you know how to determine a Rorschach test?

A. No.

Q. An Apperception test?

A. No, sir.

MR. BOWMAN: No further questions.

MR. NEW: Officer, you found him to be normal and sane?

A. Yes.

WITNESS EXCUSED.

MR. NEW: The State rests, Your Honor.

THE STATE OF INDIANA RESTS.

THE COURT: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, a recess is necessary at this time. This recess may be as long as twenty minutes. Come back to the jury room at 10:00 o'clock. By agreement of counsel and with the consent of the State and defendants given in open court, the jury is permitted to separate. Don't talk among yourselves and don't let anyone talk to you about this case or any subject connected therewith. Don't form or express any opinion on the case till the case is finally submitted to you. Do not read any newspaper articles that may appear about the case and don't watch anything or listen to anything that may be broadcast about the case. You are excused from the courtroom. You are not supposed to be in the courtroom from now till you are called back. You may leave.

JURY EXCUSED.

THE COURT: The State has rested. Any motions?

MR. ERBECKER: I would like to have five minutes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me ask if there are any motions?

MR. ERBECKER: Yes, on behalf of Gertrude Baniszewski.

THE COURT: The other defendants?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you want to make them now?

MR. BOWMAN: I am ready.

THE COURT: On behalf of whom?

MR. BOWMAN: On behalf of Coy Hubbard and John Baniszewski.

THE COURT: State your motion.

MR. BOWMAN: The defendant John Baniszewski moves the court to direct a verdict of not guilty. On behalf of defendant Coy Hubbard we move the court to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. On behalf of defendant John Stephan Baniszewski, I move the court to withdraw from consideration of the jury the charge of First Degree Murder. On behalf of defendant John Baniszewski, I move the court to withdraw from consideration of the jury the charge of Second Degree Murder. On behalf of defendant Coy Hubbard, I move the court to withdraw from consideration of the jury the charge of First Degree Murder. On behalf of defendant Coy Hubbard, I move the court to withdraw from consideration of the jury the charge of Second Degree Murder. All this for the reason there is insufficient evidence.

THE COURT: Defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski move for a directed verdict of not guilty. Defendants Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski move the court to withdraw from consideration of the jury the offenses of First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder. Both motions overruled.

MR. RICE: May it please the court, behalf of defendant Paula Marie Baniszewski, I would respectfully move the court for a directed verdict of acquittal. I would also respectfully move the court to withdraw from consideration of the jury the charge of First Degree Murder as against Paula Marie Baniszewski, and also respectfully move the court to withdraw from consideration of the jury the charge of Second Degree Murder as against Paula Marie Baniszewski. All motions are based on the claim that there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate these charges against this defendant now before the jury.

THE COURT: Show those motions are overruled. Any motions, Mr. Nedeff?

MR. NEDEFF: Yes, Judge. Richard Dean Hobbs makes the same motion, Your Honor, and assigns the same - the following reasons, in addition to the reason submitted by George Rice and Forrest Bowman, assigns the following reason, that the State wholly failed to prove any of the essential allegations set out in the indictment here, unlawfully, feloniously, purposely, maliciously strike, beat, kick at and against the body of Sylvia Marie Likens, then and thereby inflicting mortal wounds upon the body of Sylvia Marie Likens. I think all the testimony against my defendant, if it is all believed, I don't think is enough to make out a case of First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder or Manslaughter. Lack of evidence - insufficient evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ERBECKER: At this time, Your Honor, defendant Gertrude Baniszewski respectfully moves the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty as to First Degree Murder herein because the record is barren of sufficient evidence to show premeditated malice and, secondly, the State utterly failed to prove sanity of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and she further respectfully moves the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on Second Degree Murder and the lesser included offenses therein for the reason there is insufficient evidence to prove Second Degree Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter and for the further reason the State failed to prove sanity of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

THE COURT: Overruled. Anything else?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes, the defendant Coy Hubbard moves the court to strike Exhibit No. 25 for the reason that after a consideration of all the evidence now before the court, including evidence in the presence of the jury and evidence in preliminary hearing. Exhibit No. 25 is in violation of his constitutional rights under the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments of the Constitution, specifically due process of law, equal protection of the law and the right to counsel as well as under the constitution of the state of Indiana. The defendant John Stephan Baniszewski moves the court to strike State's Exhibit No. 28 for the reason that, based on all the evidence that was presented, in the presence of the jury and that presented in their absence, the obtaining and use of State's Exhibit No. 28 violates John Baniszewski's federal constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th. 6th and 14th amendments to the constitution of the United States, more specifically due process clause, equal protection clause and the federally guaranteed right to counsel, as well as violating his rights under the constitution of the State of Indiana.

THE COURT: Overruled, authority 9-1607, Burns.

MR. BOWMAN: In view of that, the defendants both reiterate their previous motion for discharge and withdrawal of consideration.

THE COURT: In view of what?

MR. BOWMAN: In view of the motion just made striking the exhibit.

THE COURT: Motion to strike overruled as to both defendants, Coy Hubbard and John Stephan Baniszewski. Any other motions, Gentlemen?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes, Your Honor, I will restate the motion for discharge and withdrawal of consideration. Would you like to restate the motion completely?

THE COURT: No, I thought I overruled it.

MR. BOWMAN: You did not.

THE COURT: Do you want me to reconsider the ruling on the other?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Defendants John Stephan Baniszewski and Coy Hubbard move the court to reconsider it's ruling overruling defendants' motion for directed verdict of not guilty and to take from the jury consideration of Murder in the First Degree and Second Degree, in view of the fact he has made a motion to strike from the record Exhibits No. 25 and 28. Overruled, is that stated correctly for you, sir?

MR. BOWMAN: I think so.

THE COURT: Any other motions? Alright, I told the jury about five minutes after 10:00. We will be in recess till five after 10:00.

RECESS.
e-mail: webmaster@sylvialikens.com

Return to Baniszewski Trial Transcript

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron