Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 10 · column 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
Deliberate Murder
In his closing remarks to the jury, Commonwealth Attorney Davis maintained that Carter’s actions were deliberate at least from the time he was told to leave the party and then went to get the shotgun. Afterwards, said Davis, Carter went back to the party and lay in waft. “The evidence does not disclose that the defendant acted in other than a deliberate manner,” Davis argued. Defense Attorney Biddle in his summation, insisted that Carter acted in a fit of continuing rage. Biddle noted that witnesses testified Carter wasn’t his normal self but also wasn’t drunk. Yet, the defendant was asked to leave the party, continued the defense attorney.
“If he wasn’t drunk, his actions must have indicated . . (to Haywood Turner) that he was not normal,” Biddle stated.
Biddle reminded the jury that Carter kept repeating “I’ve got a point to make and I’m going to make ft” over and over again through clenched teeth. “He was furious,” Biddle maintained.
Biddle argued that Carter hadn’t intended to kill the victims when he asked Dennis to take him home. When Carter instead picked up a gun and asked the frightened Dennis to take him back to the party, “his continuing rage must have been in full fruit,” Biddle insisted.
“Did he have a reason?” asked the defense attorney. “Someone had taken his woman,” said Biddle in answer.
Biddle dismissed testimony that indicated Carter was smiling and laughing after the shooting. “We’re not interested in his state of mind afterwards. We’re interested in his state of mind before.”
Not First Degree
Biddle argued that Carter’s failure to shoot Gatewood rmd Starks from hiding was evidence of his uncontrollable rage. “He was so mad he wanted them to know who it was,” Biddle maintained. “His rage was so great, ft clouded his reason. That is not first degree murder,” Biddle concluded.
In his rebuttal, Commonwealth Attorney Davis emphasized that “not normal is not the same thing as obsessed in the heat of passion . . . The man lost his woman. That happens . . . probably every hour of the day.”
“When you have a point to prove,” Davis continued, “you’re not acting in blind rage. You’re acting with deliberation...with thoughtful consideration of how you’re going to prove the point.” Frank Carter received no provocation from either of the victims after he left Ed Starks’s house with the gun, Davis maintained. “Even if he had been in the heat of passion when he left the party, he’d cooled off’ before the shootings occured, the Commonwealth Attorney concluded.
After Davis’s rebuttal, Judge Penn sent the nine men and three women into the jury room to consider their verdict. During the deliberations, Frank Carter remained in the same position that he’d assumed throughout the entire trial. With his back and head bowed over clasped hands between his knees, the defendant stared at the floor, never looking at either the witnesses, judge or jury.
Three times during the deliberations, the jury foreman returned tn rfc*
1
85.2%