Stacy Deener (2:26)

Sam.

Anya Cain (3:10)

First of all, Stacey, it's great to talk to you. Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Stacy Deener (3:13)

Thank you for asking.

Anya Cain (3:14)

So, yeah, we're going to be talking about the prosecution's case in chief today as part of our Anatomy of a Trial series. I guess, to start off with, can you just give us a little bit of an overview of your years of experience as a prosecutor, as both a deputy prosecutor, an elected prosecutor, and just kind of just take us through that trajectory?

Stacy Deener (3:33)

Sure. I was lucky enough to be hired in a prosecutor's office right out of law school. Didn't really understand the significance of being a chief deputy. But it was a small town, small county, that being Plaska county and Winnemac, Indiana, and it provided me a really great start to becoming a career prosecutor. I was there for eight years as the chief deputy, and my boss at the time lost a primary election, and so I jumped in in the general election and was elected to be the prosecutor and did that for three consecutive terms. So I was in Palaci county as a prosecutor for 20 years, and 12 of those, I was running the office. And then I went to White county for eight years as a chief deputy. Just made a decision to move closer to family and change of scenery. So I just. I didn't sign up to run and spent eight years as the chief deputy in White county with the intention of running for prosecutor and filling that role eventually. So that's something that I'm running for right now. It did get derailed when I did not successfully win in a primary. So I came over to Carroll county to assist in the Richard Allen murder trial, which is commonly known as the Delphi murders, regarding Libby German and Abigail Williams. And I was part of the prosecution team. We successfully prosecuted Mr. Allen, and he was found guilty. During the time of that preparation, I was asked to fill the chief deputy spot for Carroll County. So I took on that responsibility, and I've been there ever since.

Anya Cain (5:23)

We got to see you firsthand prosecuting Richard Allen. You did a great job in that, and we're certainly endorsing you for your race for White county prosecutor right now.

Stacy Deener (5:31)

I appreciate that.

Anya Cain (5:32)

Yeah, of course. So I guess to start off with, when we're. When we're thinking about, you know, kind of the abstract of a prosecution case, what are sort of the considerations? I mean, I'm sure it's somewhat different based on the facts of the case and based on what's specifically going on in that case. But if we're talking generally, what are some things that are going through a prosecutor's mind as you are sort of ushering that case through, what are you doing, what sort of things are you doing in order to ensure that it is as strong as possible before you even think about going to trial?

Stacy Deener (6:08)

Sure. I personally always think about what if this goes to trial? When I'm reading the initial documents sent over by law enforcement. I don't know if everyone does it that way, but I feel like it's helpful from the very beginning to have red flags kind of identified if there are any at the very beginning, follow up that might be helpful, evidence that might be maybe missing or could be improved upon by additional efforts. And also having in mind what some of the weaknesses might be. And I do that even with something as minor as public intoxication all the way up to, you know, something as serious as murder, certainly it's much more complicated, the more serious the charges and the more, the higher the consequences for the defendant. Makes a huge difference in what they're motivated to do. But it's important to know where your weaknesses are and where your strengths are from the very beginning. So I look at it from the very beginning. Typically when you review a case, when I review a case, I anticipate when a case is probably headed for trial and when it's probably going to be a plea agreement. And I have in mind what I'm looking for. A lot of that depends on victim impact, seriousness of the crime, criminal history. And sometimes when you deal with certain defendants on a repeat basis, you know a little bit about where they're coming from, maybe attitudes or challenges. So those are all relevant.

Anya Cain (7:44)

You know, one aspect of being a prosecutor and working on these, these criminal cases is working with law enforcement. And you know, I, I, you know, talking to prosecutors and law enforcement as we do on the show, sometimes you can kind of like sense there can be tension of, like, law enforcement might feel like a case is ready, but a prosecutor saying, I need more. How do you kind of partner with law enforcement as a prosecutor in order to be able to, you know, do the job effectively and gain the trust of law enforcement, while also making sure you're encouraging them to get things in the way that you need in order to make a strong case?

Stacy Deener (8:23)

Certainly being an effective prosecutor requires a good working relationship with law enforcement. That doesn't mean that we always have to agree on where we're headed or what the evidence quality may be. And sometimes it's beyond their control. But they can become very passionate about what they want a particular case to look like at the end, and so do prosecutors. So I think we just have to respect each other's goals. And perspectives, even when we don't agree. I like to have an open line of communication with officers, even about mundane things, because then when something comes up that may be more touchy or create more tension, we have a better rapport in discussing those challenges and moving forward with those. So I always want there to be a mutual respect with law enforcement officers. And you can't do that without having regular, ongoing contact when things are not tense, so that when they are, you can better communicate.

Anya Cain (9:27)

That makes a lot of sense. Like you feel like you're on the same team, and it doesn't become a big rift between everybody.

Stacy Deener (9:34)

And I always want them to know that if I'm being critical of something, it's not personal. It's about making our case better and helping them on their end of the situation. You know, the other one's doing the investigations. They're the ones having to make sometimes decisions that don't give them a lot of time to think about various factors. And so you have to be sensitive to that. And I want them to be comfortable with input that I may give them about how something will play out in court. So, again, it requires a relationship, but it's always intended to make them better, their work better, our case better, and to improve my own.

Anya Cain (10:17)

One thing we were so struck by with the Delphi murders trial was how you took care of the families of the victims on direct examination, and you were asking them questions with that, and you worked with them when we were struck by how sensitive and compassionate and empathetic you were towards them while still getting the information you needed to in order to kind of bring the trial forward. And how do you do that? Because I imagine one big part of the job is also working with either victims, the surviving family members or relatives or loved ones of victims, and also maybe surviving victims in cases where it's not a murder, it's not something where someone has died. How do you kind of balance the need to kind of take the case through the criminal justice system, which can be, you know, kind of like very much about the law and very much about facts and kind of a bit, you know, colder, with also being empathetic to these people who have gone through something horrible? How do you sort of balance those things? Because I felt you did a really good job of that at trial.

Stacy Deener (11:16)

I feel like that's one of my strengths as a prosecutor. And I don't think it just comes from being a female prosecutor, because I think that people who deal with male and female attorneys, they can have a variety of experiences and it isn't really related to the gender. But I do think that, for me, I have a strength in that area of being able to be empathetic to people, to pick up on their concerns or their stress level, and willing to confront it in a way that maybe helps them become comfortable about what they need to do. For example, there were lots of witnesses in my list that were very nervous and hesitant about participating. Sometimes it became very difficult to be able to even schedule a meeting. In fact, you know, one of the witnesses that was on the trail, that was quite important. I needed to go through an attorney to meet with her, and I had to be understanding of that because it is very scary when you're dealing with a murder case and you're a person outside of the prosecutor's office not knowing all of the evidence. You don't know if you are putting yourself in harm's way by participating, even if it is to help prosecute a person that's been charged with such a serious crime. Family members, you know, I can say to you I was very nervous and concerned about meeting with them. I wanted them to feel comfortable with me. I had not been on the case for seven years. I was coming in one year prior to the actual trial date. That was a lot of information to go through. I needed to make sure they understood that even though I was new to the case, that I was on their side, that I was working hard to understand how this impacted them. And I think it pays off when it comes to trial, because then we have a rapport, and I can put them at ease, at least to some extent.

Anya Cain (13:08)

So we've gotten into law enforcement. We've gone into surviving family members, surviving victims, maybe even witnesses who are in a bad situation by being kind of thrust into the middle of a criminal case. I guess the next thing would be, you know, in terms of before we're even getting to the trial. You have a lot to do with defense attorneys as a prosecutor, just in the buildup. And, you know, we're doing a similar episode in this series where we're going to ask the similar questions to a defense attorney. So I'll be curious to see, you know, the differences or similarities there. But how do you typically deal with defense attorneys? Does it just depend on their style or what? You know, sometimes I get the sense there can be more of a rapport because you're kind of two sides of the same coin in the system, even though you're, you know, adversaries, certainly working

Stacy Deener (13:53)

with defense attorneys, that you've had an ongoing relationship with, meaning that they're an attorney who practices in the court where you're appearing all the time does assist in some ways. Sometimes there's conflict or tension, even when it's somebody you deal with all the time. And that, you know, comes down to personalities. But we certainly saw it, you know, in the deli case where we had three attorneys on the other side and then we had three prosecutors, myself, Jim Luttrell, and Nick McLeland. And things became very heated and the social media aspect of it fed that fire, I would say. And so sometimes we would kind of tag team who's going to deal with who based on maybe exhaustion or frustration. You know, sometimes you can't get away from dealing with someone, but it certainly helps when you can trade off with someone else. In dealing with a difficult defense attorney. You got to work with them. You got to find a way to get get for move forward. And you don't want the conflict with the attorney to become the focal point of the case. You still have to keep coming back to the evidence and the goal of either resolving it or going to trial and respecting each other's responsibilities.

Anya Cain (15:12)

I love having my own podcast. I can make editorial decisions and focus on true crime cases and stories that I care about. I'm so glad I did it, but I'm not gonna lie, it was a scary choice.

Kevin Greenlee (15:22)

Running a business made us feel like we were on our own. I wish we'd known about Shopify back when we launched the Murder Sheet. Shopify is the kind of partner that you need in order to help bet on yourself and follow your dreams.

Anya Cain (15:34)

They could have helped us out a lot because Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the globe. We're talking 10% of all E commerce from the United States. We're talking household names along with brands that are just starting out.

Kevin Greenlee (15:47)

One thing that's so helpful is Shopify provides you with your own personalized design studio. They've got hundreds of templates in store all ready to use. You don't need a lot of tech. Know how they'll help you craft a lovely online store that matches your brand style.

Anya Cain (16:04)

Shopify will make your business more efficient. Whether you're improving on your existing products or uploading new products. Their AI tools can help you with the perfect product descriptions, page headlines, and even product photography.

Kevin Greenlee (16:19)

Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com msheet Go to shopify.com msheet that's shopify.com msheet

Anya Cain (16:41)

it's spring so it's time for a reset. Celebrate spring by upgrading your wardrobe with some new impactful pieces.

Kevin Greenlee (16:48)

Celebrate by treating yourself to some quints. Quince is a wonder wonderful sponsor of ours. We love them because they are all about accessible luxury. They boast high quality products, the premium everyday essentials that you can wear all the time even as the seasons change.

Anya Cain (17:04)

Think linen pants and shirts for men and their super soft flow knit activewear fabric. It's moisture wicking and anti odor and so comfortable to wear. Not to mention their excellent washable silk dresses that I love to wear.

Kevin Greenlee (17:17)

It's premium products for less, significantly less think 50 to 60% less than similar brands. You see, Quince pulls that off because they only pair with ethical factories and artisans who set rigorous standards for craftsmanship. They cut out the middleman entirely.

Anya Cain (17:36)

I love wearing Quince's black washable silk dresses and black washable silk skirt. Those are my two go tos right now and they make me feel stylish without feeling like I'm smooth splurging too much. I can't wait to try out new Quince products too.

Kevin Greenlee (17:50)

Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.commsheet you know you mentioned earlier like

Anya Cain (18:13)

considering what cases are likely to go to trial versus those that might plead out what, like what are some signs and as a prosecutor, how do you determine what's best for the case in terms of those kinds of outcomes and how you go about possibly making deals. I feel like when I talk to people in true crime, people don't really understand plea deals. They can be very upset by a plea deal and feel like someone might be getting off easy. What's the reality of I guess setting those up as a prosecutor and how you go about maybe thinking that might be the most desirable outcome in certain cases?

Stacy Deener (18:50)

I think it's easiest in situations when you're dealing with low level misdemeanors as far as explain the process. Low level misdemeanors where people are in trouble for marijuana, alcohol, fighting in general, crimes that involve driving offenses which can become very serious. But on a misdemeanor level you can kind of look at them all the same in that the goal is to try to get the person the help that they need that. They obviously are not getting on their own. So substance abuse or domestic violence, certainly some intervention needs to be done. And the best way to do that is putting a person on probation with the threat of jail. So we call that a suspended sentence so that they have an incentive to cooperate and be supervised and complete the rehabilitative care. And at the same time having a safety measure, no contact orders or orders that restrict contact under certain circumstances or driver license suspension, those are all things that act as a safety net also like interlock devices for people who have drunk driving situations. So you have that, that safety net as well. So those are, I would say, equally important and can be accomplished in a plea agreement where someone's willing to take some responsibility and be on probation. And then when you get into more serious offenses, you're talking about what kind of criminal history does this person have? Had they had an opportunity to be rehabilitated? Or has their crime created such an impact on someone, a victim, or just in society in general, you know, higher level drug offenses, those people pose a risk to our community safety. When their behavior becomes out of control due to substance abuse or because they are providing drugs or proliferating the drug being available in your community, those you need to look at a little differently. And certainly you want there to be a heavier consequence and jail time is more necessary just to keep people off the street or to make an impact that something like probation would not have. In addition, you know, making sure that they have a consequence, that is measure it with the harm that they've caused. So if you have somebody who strangles their spouse and the person feels like they were near death, certainly you got to look at that twice and say, is it really appropriate for you to have the opportunity to just be on probation and they may have a criminal history that prohibits it or a sentencing parameter. And then as you go up the line, you know, child molest, murder, attempted murder, rape, other sexual crimes of violence, burglary, robbery, things where weapons are involved, the need to focus on rehabilitation starts to fall down on the list. And maybe sometimes it's not so much a consideration at all when you just need to protect your community. And that person needs to go to doc to really understand the seriousness of their crime and the need to keep them out of society for a period

Anya Cain (22:05)

of time, that makes sense. It's really, I imagine, just so often dependent on the circumstances that you're looking at.

Stacy Deener (22:12)

Well, the other challenge for me, I think what I see for prosecutors is that we should all be trying to be Consistent. Not that we're going to have cookie cutter plea agreements or that we're all going to do things the same, but someone should be able to look at our work across prosecutors within a county or even across counties, and see that we're following parameters or guidance in what the law provides for and consequence, and that we are giving more serious consequences for more serious offenders and not minimizing their outcomes artificially.

Anya Cain (22:48)

Right. One question, and obviously, you know, you. You work prosecuting crimes. You know, it's not to say that, you know, you like prosecuting one certain set of crimes or another, but I guess just as a prosecutor, what are some cases that kind of make you feel like this is like, what I need to be doing? This is like, what are the cases that I guess you like to tackle the most?

Stacy Deener (23:14)

I would say that although I feel like high level drug offenses and violent crimes that involve weapons are certainly very, very serious, I am more impassioned by those that have victims, identifiable victims. And when I have an opportunity to review a case for charges and I can get in touch with a victim that's been through something traumatic and have a conversation with them and explain the process and what my purpose is and get feedback from them about how they got to where they are, why are they a victim, what are the contributing factors? I really feel like I'm making a difference, and those are the ones that I really walk away from feeling really

Anya Cain (24:04)

good about in, in terms of, you know, and then. Then we'll jump into the trial aspect of this. But in terms of the side of things where we're talking, you know, you're in Carroll county now, you're running for prosecutor in White County. In that area of Indiana, in those specific communities, what are some of the biggest challenges and problems facing those communities that require sort of prosecution? And, you know, kind of. Can you talk about where your sort of philosophies on prosecution align with, you know, making a difference in terms of those challenges and issues in those communities?

Stacy Deener (24:42)

What I can tell you is that in Flasky county, in White county and in Carroll county, it is a situation where you have an elected prosecutor and a chief deputy. And it's only been recently that Carroll county hired an additional person at the county level. So what I can say about all of those that is very similar is that we are in rural areas and the kinds of crimes that become quite common are the same. And the challenges that I see from our side of the case is resources. So it's difficult to get people consistent counseling, therapeutic care, intense Domestic violence counseling, monitoring for substance abuse and compliance, you know, with non use, because the departments are all smaller, fewer employees. And so that has a cyclical impact on the ability to monitor and enforce. So there might be areas where the impact of probation might be better or more successful as far as recidivism rates in a larger jurisdiction where there are more resources.

Anya Cain (26:10)

Absolutely. And, you know, in terms of like, making the most of those limited resources in those rural communities, do you have, like, ideas on how to, you know, effectively make the most of that, you know, when leading a prosecutor's office?

Stacy Deener (26:26)

Well, I think that, you know, it can become a bit of a juggling challenge. And so that's why I think it's important as a prosecutor to be involved with those community partners, we call them, so community corrections and the counseling agencies that serve your geographic area probation officers, because having that kind of relationship with the other community partners allows you to better understand when you might be contributing to an overload and you need to realize the limitations.

Anya Cain (27:09)

And so when we're kind of going into trial as a prosecutor, you know, what are some things that are kind of going into how. I mean, one thing we noticed about with the Delphi case was how well constructed the prosecution's case was in terms of, like, telling the story of, of what happened that day, getting into the witnesses, bringing in. It just felt like it flowed together really well in a way that made it even like a stronger. Like it was easy to grasp at the end of the day, even though it was an extremely complicated case. You know, how are, how are you kind of thinking about those strategic things as far as, like, witness order and how you're conveying all this complex information to a jury in the case?

Stacy Deener (27:52)

Well, I can say that every trial has those same challenges. You're asking a jury of everyday people that you in part, select to hear evidence in a very short period of time, whether that's three weeks of trial for something as complex as the Richard Allen case, or whether it's a day and a half for something like an operating wall intoxicated with prior conviction. But I always approach it the same. I feel as though chronological order is pretty important for people to be able to follow. And so I always try to follow a chronological order, which can sometimes tend to be a challenge based on witness availability or the way in which evidence has to be verified and the foundations that need to be put in place in order for it to be admissible. Those are all things you have to consider. But I would say that that's an overarching structure for the way that I like to present things. In addition, one of the big challenges, I think, especially with something as complicated as the Delphi murder, is that we had been working with this information for such a long, long time, and you become so familiar with it, like with anything, then you start to overlook minute details or expect that people are reading between the lines and grasping a larger concept that they're hearing for the first time. But you've talked about it for six months, so you have to, as a prosecutor, back yourself up and listen to your presentation in your own head, or record yourself or put it on paper and go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that you aren't making any assumptions functions and that you are in some sense spoon feeding the information in a way that can be easily understood and remembered. So it requires interplay with, I'm going to talk to you about this, then I'm going to have a witness talk to you about this same thing and then I'm going to come back later and show it to you in a video or on paper. Because people learn things in different ways, they remember in different ways. So we have to pay attention to. Some people are visual learners, some are audible, and all of that plays a part in a presentation.

Anya Cain (30:12)

When it comes to the very important work of actually selecting the jury, what are some things you might be looking for for a prospective juror who might be, you know, a good fit? I know both defense and prosecution are looking at people and there's all kinds of, like, jury things where, you know, like, oh, you know, go for someone with this background or this job. But I guess what are some of the kind of generalities that you can speak to as far as, you know, picking a jury that's going to be a good fit?

Stacy Deener (30:39)

Well, from the prosecutor side, you certainly want jurors that will follow the law as it's presented. If we are prosecuting a case, we believe that the law supports what we've charged. We also think that our evidence supports the charge and that what we're intending to present is admissible. So you want someone that's going to be interested in following the law and the guidance that they're given so that the process works the way it's supposed to. From a prosecutor perspective, you don't want someone that would go rogue and say, no, I think that I get to decide and my inclination is a better way to move forward than to follow what the law says. So that's something we always look for. And then you want people who are not afraid to make a decision. But you can't have a jury full of leaders because then if they disagree, then they can't come for a resolution. So you have to have some people that you might consider to be more a follower and other people that you feel are going to lead the discussion. And then when it comes to gender, I think it's always good to have a mic. You then tailor other issues to your case. So finding out whether someone has a sensitivity to a certain issue like child molesting is very common. We typically ask very open ended questions. Have you ever been in a situation because you don't want to be specific and make someone embarrassed? Have you ever had a situation in your life that would cause you to be biased either for or against, you know, the defendant or the state in this case because of the nature of the crime? In other situations, let's say you have something like resisting law enforcement, you would say, have you ever had a bad experience with law enforcement that would cause you to mistrust or to give less weight to an officer's testimony than you would someone else's? So those are some examples where it can become very case specific.

Anya Cain (32:34)

Yeah, that makes sense. But I mean, I imagine from the prosecution's perspective, if someone has a bias against law enforcement or maybe had a terrible experience with law enforcement, you know, given that much of what you guys do is, you know, the work of working with law enforcement very closely, that would be something that would be, would certainly be problematic.

Stacy Deener (32:53)

We certainly want to know about it.

Anya Cain (32:55)

Yeah, yeah. So we got into the jury selection, you know, in terms of like, things like opening statements and you know, I guess I'll, I'll pair. Even though it's kind of the beginning and the end, opening statements in closing arguments and just sort of how you're going through some of those big moments in a trial. What are some things that you're thinking about in terms of the right tone to strike or, you know, how you're conveying that information in an orderly way that kind of captures the jury's attention?

Stacy Deener (33:24)

Sure. Opening statement is the opportunity to lay the groundwork, provide an overview and talk about what we believe evidence will show. And not to overstate, because if I, if I tell a jury our evidence is going to show A, B and C, and then when I actually present the evidence, there's a weakness and it only shows A and B and not C, they might decide that maybe I'm not being forthright or there's, you know, some concern about the evidence. So an Opening statement in my operation is typically, I'm going to tell you about what the law says. I'm going to tell you why I think that this particular case deserves to be heard and a conviction is appropriate just from the standpoint of law and what we think the evidence will be and leave it at that because it's just an introduction. Now, when you do closing arguments, you want to revisit your opening, but it is a closing argument. So there's going to be some persuasion and argument and conclusions drawn, which we're allowed to do as part of our presentation. So I'm going to touch on opening statement and say, see, I told you I was going to show you A, B and C and we did show you a B and, and this is why A, B and C are important. And then I'm going to bring you back to the law and say A, B and C shows you that the crime we charged is appropriate and you should find the person guilty. And then I like to provide some argument about, you know, witness demeanor and how would you decide who to believe and who not to believe when you have two people saying maybe diametrically opposed things and direct them to other evidence that supports a conclusion to believe one statement over another where there might be statements that, you know, he said this, she said that, and they may feel like there's no way to break the tie. So you want to help them break the tie. And then you always want to reserve a little bit back and anticipate what the defense is going to say in their closing argument because the state gets the opportunity to have a final say. Because we have the burden. The defense doesn't have to present anything. They don't have to have any witnesses. The defendant does not need to testify. So you can't always know whether that's going to happen or not. And so you need to anticipate those things and stays back a little bit to use that as an opportunity to bring things full circle for the jury.

Anya Cain (35:56)

That makes sense. And we talked a little bit about your, your great work with some of the witnesses in the Delphi trial. But of course, you know, as a prosecutor, you're not only doing direct examination for the prosecution witnesses, but you're also cross examining defense witnesses. Can you and I, we, I mean, there were a couple of times in the deli case, I mean, we thought your work on that was absolutely brilliant. There was like an instance that I will never forget where there was A defense witness, Dr. Deanna Dwanger, who was sort of a supervisor in sort of the mental health aspect of Indiana Department of Correction was working, you know, kind of overseeing some of the folks working directly with Richard Allen, and she was being presented as a defense witness. Some of the questions you ended up asking after, like, bouncing off some of the juror questions essentially flipped her to the prosecution side. And I remember people afterwards saying, like, that was almost like a prosecution witness. And that was some of what you were able to accomplish just with, you know, kind of being very quick on both cross examination and responding to juror questions. How do you do that? And, like, what are some good practices that best practices that you employ when you are cross examining defense witnesses?

Stacy Deener (37:10)

So I'm glad you brought up Deanna Dwenger. It was one of my favorite moments in the trial.

Anya Cain (37:15)

It was. I just want to say it was insane. It was literally. I mean, we saw it and we were just like, what is happening? Like, you took. You hijacked that witness in the best way possible, but you did it very like. It was, you know, it was very overt to us, but it was very smooth. You know what I mean?

Stacy Deener (37:30)

I appreciate that. That is the goal. And it is one of those moments that doesn't happen frequently. And so when it does, as a prosecutor, you really just want to jump up and down and do a little cheer, but that's not allowed. So I would say, yeah. The cross examination of Deanna Dwanger and the cross examination of their mental health expert, Polly Westcott, were some of my highlights from the standpoint of cross examining defense witnesses. And we had had a deposition of Deanna Dwanger, and I had spoken with her in preparation for trial after that deposition. And I was very active while asking her questions during the deposition to truly understand what she could bring to the table. And we actually debated about whether she should be our witness or whether we should pass on calling her and see if they did, because you never know. One of those things you cannot predict. They can put that person on their witness list, but typically the defense will put everyone that is on your list on their list, and then it's a mystery. So she was one of those people. And I would say that I think I just better understood where she was coming from, and I heard what she could provide as a witness better than the defense did. So they called her for a particular purpose in order to attack Dr. Walla. But from my read of her in the depositions and from the documents that I could associate with her work at the Department of Corrections, I was able to use her as a state witness on the cross examination and like you said, you know, turn her from what they perceived to be a witness supporting their case and attacking Dr. Walla into supporting the state's position. And it was beautiful.

Anya Cain (39:29)

Geez. I mean, it was. It was really something to watch. I mean, like, we were like, I don't know, it was gripping, but it sounds like a lot of it went into you doing the homework and doing kind of like a lot of preparation to get to that point, while it looks to us like, oh, it's a spontaneous, wild thing happening in the courtroom. You were doing so much to build up to that point. Is that fair to say?

Stacy Deener (39:56)

Absolutely. A situation where I say, you know, to myself and I say it to other prosecutors when we talk about preparation, like, we have to know the evidence, ours and theirs, better than they do, and it's the only way to be able to turn the tide on something like that is when you know their evidence better than they do. And I felt like I did with that witness and also with Polly Westcott. I had studied her report, and it was like 130 pages a lot. I mean, it's just. I can't even tell you how many hours that I put into studying what she had to say, what she used to build her report from what I knew existed from the record. And I don't know if you were going to bring it up, but, you know, with. With cross examination of her, I was able to point out how she was very selective in what she included in the report. And it directly tied, in my opinion and the way I presented it to the defendant, purpose and their defense strategy, but it also made them. Made it look biased, in my opinion. And I think that that message was sent to the jury.

Anya Cain (41:12)

Yeah, I think you were, like, asking, if I recall, it was like, you know, who was providing you and like, what, like, how many things did you even get? And what it turned out was that she had received a very limited amount of reports compared to what actually existed. And I think, you know, when you. When. When you're able to do that, I think it certainly, like, calls into question anything an expert witness is saying.

Stacy Deener (41:36)

Well, and even within a document that she cited, I was able to, like, identify that document because I knew the record so well and actually went through them with a fine tooth poem and made my own summary, you know, of thousands and thousands of pages. And so I was really in. In it, and I was able to go and identify a document because I knew where she was drawing from just by the particularities that she was citing. And I could see other things that to me would be relevant but were not referenced. And I also thought a jury is going to understand that these things are relevant. If you see the whole statement and then you see what she draws from it and everything that was left out, it really painted a picture when it

Anya Cain (42:23)

comes to, I guess, the overall, you know, like, I mean, actually, I want to ask about this. You. A number of times in the trial that we saw, you were also, like, objecting a lot to the point where I think it threw off. I think it was a number of times with Brad Rosie. I think for some reason you and him were often, you know, dealing with the same witnesses. It seemed to throw off his game. It seemed to kind of make him stumble. How do you like, I guess, what strategies go into those kinds of object objections as you're kind of jumping in and objecting to things?

Stacy Deener (43:00)

It did seem that in, you know, in the course of organizing a case as large as that, everyone picks kind of their area or they're assigned their area of topic, you know, related topics within the case. And so mine were all mental health and trail witness related. And it just so happened that that seemed to be the defense side of the case that Brad Rosie was taking on. And so we were often opposing one another with witnesses and kind of followed that way through the whole case. But, you know, when we are not in the courtroom, we're discussing strategy, we're discussing objections, were discussing patterns in our case, patterns in the defense case. And so it was definitely a topic of conversation between our prosecution team about what we know to be a typical form of the question by Mr. Rosey. And we. We found a way to object to the formatted question. And I can tell you that, having dealt with him previously in other cases, it's just the way he communicates, but the way he forms the question is objectionable. So we just started doing that. And I happened to be the person who was in a position to do that first and to continue. And once we got. Once we got a sustained objection by the judge, he couldn't help himself. It's the way he typically puts together an inquiry. And so it's so second nature to him. It. I was. I was able to kind of derail his concentration, I think, a little bit.

Anya Cain (44:45)

Yeah, it. Derail is the right word there. And then there were a couple of times later where he'd like catch himself before asking it in an objectional way and like rephrase it, but you could see, like, the gears turning.

Stacy Deener (44:56)

He even mentioned it afterwards, kind of, you know, in a. In a pleasant way.

Anya Cain (45:02)

I never realized.

Stacy Deener (45:03)

I. I never realized. I always said it that way. I'm like, yes, you do. You always have.

Anya Cain (45:08)

Yep, now he knows. But, yeah. So you guys. So I think we've kind of gone through a lot of the aspects of. Of trial. Are I. One general question I have, though, are, you know, you've, you've, you have such experience. You've. You've seen so many trials and worked in different prosecutors offices. Are there things that stand out to you as far as, like, big mistakes a prosecutorial team can make, you know, whether they're subtle or not so subtle, that you've just seen or encountered, where that can kind of derail a case or things that you've kind of, you know, learned to certainly avoid in your own cases.

Stacy Deener (45:47)

I think that in trying to present a strong case, we have to be careful not to overstate. Like I said in the. When I was talking about opening statement, I think that you can do damage to your own case if you go too far and you try to push too hard because the jury understands their purpose. You don't want to insult them, and you want to let them know that you're going to give them this information, you're going to follow the rules, and you trust them to do their job. And so I think mistakes can be made if we become too pushy, too arrogant, too boisterous, you know, in our presentation, that we alienate the jury or make them feel like we don't trust them or treat them like they're not capable. And so when it comes to the anatomy of a trial, I think that is one of the things that is always on my mind. I also think it's a mistake. If you leave someone on a jury that you have a bad feeling about, you will almost always regret it. So you can't get lazy in jury selection.

Anya Cain (47:04)

Yeah, I imagine jury selections pretty much. I mean, it kind of all comes down to that at some level.

Stacy Deener (47:10)

It does. And it's an area where you're really taking a guess about who's going to be good for the case. And if you don't ask the right questions, you can find out later that there was a red herring, a red flag that would have helped you decide that someone was not good for your case, and you kept them anyway because you got to the point where you were exhausted and you thought it was safe to just say, okay, I think I've got what I need, and it can backfire.

Anya Cain (47:41)

I'm curious in terms of is there Anything I didn't ask about about a prosecution's case going into trial or going during trial that you wanted to mention that I have not asked about yet?

Stacy Deener (47:53)

I would say witness preparation is pretty important, and we talked about that a little bit with the family witnesses, just how to be empathetic to them. But I also think that it is imperative not only to have that relationship with officers about, you know, cases that are slam dunks, but to pave the way for those difficult conversations where something is more complicated or more up to, to, oh, I don't know, up in the air about how it might pan out. But witness preparation is really important so that even law enforcement gets nervous. You know, it's okay. They aren't spending every day in the courtroom. And so it's really important as a prosecutor to recognize that they want to know what you're expecting from them. And they don't want to be surprised by exhibits or by defense questions any more than anybody else does. So you have to be sensitive to that and give them the time that they need to mentally prepare them for the testimony that you want. Not by telling them or to answer, but just giving them a heads up. Hey, this is what I expect you're going to be able to tell us.

Anya Cain (49:10)

Absolutely. Well, Stacy, thank you so much for coming on this episode of Anatomy of a Trial for our series. For that. We really appreciate it and, and thank you for sharing your expertise as a prosecutor.

Stacy Deener (49:23)

Thank you for asking.

Kevin Greenlee (49:25)

We really appreciate Stacy taking the time to talk with us.

Anya Cain (49:28)

Absolutely.

Kevin Greenlee (49:29)

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us@murdersheetmail.com. if you have actionable information about an unsolved case crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

Anya Cain (49:49)

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

Kevin Greenlee (50:13)

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web@kevintg.com.

Anya Cain (50:23)

if you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much, much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.

Stacy Deener (50:48)

Wherever you go, whatever they get into, from chill time to everyday adventures, protect your dog from parasites with Credelio Guattro. For full safety information, side effects and warnings, visit credelioquatrolabel.com consult your vet or call 1-888-545-5973. Ask your vet for Cordelia Quatro and visit quattrodog.com.