February 25, 2016 - A findings of fact hearing for Shakeitha Cartwright was heard in the 273rd Judicial District Court on Wednesday, February 17, 2016. Cartwright was found guilty of the capital murder of her baby, Keilly Hoyt, by a Shelby County jury and was convicted to life in prison without parole on January 22, 2014.
It was determined by the 12th Court of Appeals a Findings of Fact hearing was necessary, because one was not entered into the court record before Cartwright's trial in reference to her oral and written statements. Before her trial and conviction, Cartwright made a motion for these statements to be suppressed as she contended her statements were made while under duress and in a depressed state at the time they were made.
The hearing began on Wednesday with Shelby County Sheriff's Investigator Kevin Windham on the stand. At the time Cartwright became the main suspect in the investigation of her baby's death, Windham was the District Attorney Investigator and he assisted Center Police Detective Nicole Faulkner with the interrogation of Cartwright. Seth Johnson, Cartwright's appeal attorney, presented videos of both of Cartwright's interrogation and questioned Windham about interviewing Cartwright and and the process by which she was read her Miranda rights by Det. Faulkner during questioning; however, not yet under arrest.
Johnson questioned how Windham made her aware of these rights a second time during the interrogation process for her written statement. Although Windham did not read aloud her Miranda rights once again, he pointed to each paragraph on the statement sheet and explained Cartwright was to initial beside each paragraph confirming she read each paragraph of the Miranda warning, which she did.
Det. Faulkner was called to the stand briefly to confirm she left the interview room after reading Cartwright her Miranda rights to prepare a warrant for her arrest.
Center Police Detective Stephen Stroud was next to be called to the stand. Det. Stroud also assisted Det. Faulkner in interviewing Cartwright. Det. Stroud was seen on the video trying to gain Cartwright's trust and telling her she needed to change her story as she continued to protest she didn't kill her baby. This statement only made the interviewers push more as Cartwright's baby had suffered multiple broken bones including one arm and both legs to which she claimed she didn't know how that happened.
Focus was given to statements made by Det. Stroud to Cartwright concerning her possibly receiving the death penalty and 'lethal injection' and then comments concerning a lesser sentence if she cooperated. Shelby County Jailer, Korey McClure was also called to the stand and questioned about witnessing one of the said conversations between Cartwright and Det. Stroud.
A heated discussion between the defense and prosecution occurred shortly after Cartwright took the stand waiving her fifth amendment rights and agreeing to testify which allows that anything incriminating she says could be held against her.
Johnson addressed Cartwright, “You understand that the purpose of this hearing is not to get into a debate about what actually happened to your daughter. The purpose of this hearing is strictly to discuss what happened during your questioning,” to which Cartwright replied, “Yes sir.”
Addressing the first day of her interrogation Johnson asked, ”Did you make statements to Det. Stroud that first day that were not true?” Cartwright replied, “Yes sir.”
“Did you make statements about the use of actions that you inflicted on your daughter to Det. Stroud that were not true?” Cartwright replied “Yes sir.”
“Did you make false statements to Det. Stroud about injuries you caused to your daughter on the first day of interrogation that were not true?“ Cartwright once again replied, “Yes sir.”
“Did you make those statements because you believed it was what he wanted to hear?” asked Johnson. “Yes sir,” answered Cartwright.
Johnson asked Cartwright, with the stipulation of not discussing specific statements she had previously made, why did she make those statements to Det. Stroud on the first day? She stated, “The first day I made ‘em, because I just, because that what he wanted me to say.”
"Lethal injection, I was afraid of getting lethal injection," was Cartwright's response when asked what did she believe would happen to her if she didn't do what Det. Stroud wanted.
During the cross examination by Kenneth Florence, District Attorney, he questioned her saying, "Now you are saying you gave false statements because you were afraid of lethal injection," and she answered yes. He continued questioning her commenting with her currently serving a sentence of life without parole, wouldn't that be a motive to lie now and she responded that wasn't her motive.
The prosecution then began questioning Cartwright concerning specific statements made by her during her videoed interviews to which the defense objected to the line of questioning and the heated debate between the attorneys began. Johnson attempted to re-invoke his clients right fifth amendment right to which he was informed he could not do because she had waived them.
Florence argued his right to cross-examine Cartwright concerning her statements made during the interview in question, "Your honor, he opened the door, he asked her how her statements were not true." Florence continued, "I talked about opening the door before we left, he could open the door, so he's aware of this on the record." Johnson defended his objection to the line of questioning saying he did not ask her specifically what she said which was false. Judge Mitchell overruled the objection and Johnson requested having on record a running objection to the line of question despite the Judge's ruling.
"Your honor, in regard to him opening the door, he went into the truthfulness. He should have limited himself to voluntariness, he went into the merits after I said this is going to cause a huge problem. I'm glad I had the wisdom and foresight to say let's put it on the record because there's going to be another hearing potentially," stated Florence.
Cartwright's attorney objected to the line of questioning explaining the basis of the fact finding hearing was to determine if the video testimony and written confession of Cartwright should not have been allowed during the trial, "The legal standing of involuntariness is whether the cops did something that would compel or persuade a person to testify or to make an untruthful statement, that is the legal standard, the actual truth or falsity of the statement is irrelevant."
Johnson quoted case law to have on the record citing Lopez v. State, 384 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) and Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008.) He finished saying, "Questions that Mr. Florence is asking are now focused on what actually happened rather than questioning her as to whether not her statements in response to what Det. Stroud was telling her were true or not and if so why. And not ask her what actually happened and which specific statements were true or not true. I just simply asked her did she say things that were false in response to what Detective Stroud was saying. There's a distinction."
Judge Mitchell asked of the defense, "Is the credibility of this witness as in every other witness not an issue?" Johnson replied, "The credibility of Ms. Cartwright is an issue," to which the Judge upheld his ruling of overruling the defense's objection to the line of questioning by the prosecution.
Florence continued questioning Cartwright concerning her statements during the video interview receiving various responses some at times a yes; however, many of the responses included 'I do not remember,' 'I don't even know what you are talking about,' 'That don't even sound like me to talk like that,' 'I don't remember saying that,' 'I don't remember sir, its been three year,' and 'I don't remember any of that.'
Judge Mitchell filed his ruling with the Shelby County District Clerk on February 23rd, 2016 and upheld the evidence as admissible. According to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Voluntariness of Written Statement and Oral Confessions, Judge Mitchell's final conclusion was as follows - In conclusion, the Court finds, as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, that Defendant's statements contained in Trial Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 17 (Exhibit numbers for the Written and Oral Confessions submitted into evidence during trial) were made knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and that they were admissible as evidence against her in the trial of this matter.
The Court of Appeals and the Appellant will have 30 days from the day of filing to rule.
Code of Criminal Procedure, Title 1. Code of Criminal Procedure
Chapter 38. Evidence in Criminal Actions
Article 38.22 When statements may be used
Sec. 6. In all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an accused, the court must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as to whether the statement was made under voluntary conditions. If the statement has been found to have been voluntarily made and held admissible as a matter of law and fact by the court in a hearing in the absence of the jury, the court must enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made, along with the specific finding of facts upon which the conclusion was based, which order shall be filed among the papers of the cause. Such order shall not be exhibited to the jury nor the finding thereof made known to the jury in any manner. Upon the finding by the judge as a matter of law and fact that the statement was voluntarily made, evidence pertaining to such matter may be submitted to the jury and it shall be instructed that unless the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntarily made, the jury shall not consider such statement for any purpose nor any evidence obtained as a result thereof. In any case where a motion to suppress the statement has been filed and evidence has been submitted to the court on this issue, the court within its discretion may reconsider such evidence in his finding that the statement was voluntarily made and the same evidence submitted to the court at the hearing on the motion to suppress shall be made a part of the record the same as if it were being presented at the time of trial. However, the state or the defendant shall be entitled to present any new evidence on the issue of the voluntariness of the statement prior to the court's final ruling and order stating its findings.
