I. Case Facts & Holdings

a. Murder Synopsis

Debra Sue Carter was found dead in her apartment the morning of December 8,

1982. Her naked body was found laying face down beside her bed. A bloody washcloth

was found lodged down her throat; the name ‘Duke Gram’ had been written, in catsup, on

her back. Other messages, written in either catsup or nail polish, were left throughout the

apartment. Underneath her body were an electrical cord and a Western-style belt with a

large belt buckle. Although there were several bruises, bind marks and signs of head

trauma, it would later be determined that the initial cause of death was strangulation and

that Carter was alive while she was beaten and raped.

The night before she was killed, Carter was last seen in the parking lot of the

Coachlight around 12:30 a.m. Several people leaving the bar saw Carter talking with

Glen Gore. After Carter had left, Gore got a ride home from an acquaintance, Ron West.

Gore instructed West to drop him off a few blocks north at the Oak Avenue Baptist

Church, where he claimed he would walk home from there. The church was a mile away

from Carter’s apartment; Gore’s residence was several blocks north of the church on the

opposite side of town. The police report states that Gore was never at Carter’s apartment

and had no recollection of disputing with Carter prior to her leaving the Coachlight. Gore

submitted hair and fiber samples to the Ada Police, but his samples never made it to the

labs of the OSBI.

The prime suspect, Ronald Williamson, wasn’t included in the list of suspects

until three months after the murder. Williamson testifies that he was at home with his

mother that night. The Williamson residence was a block away from Carter’s apartment

1

and Williamson had been known to wander the streets late at night. However, none of the

witnesses at the Coachlight recall seeing Williamson there the night of the murder.

Williamson had a history of DUIs and was acquitted of two rape charges in Tulsa.

Williamson had been in and out of several mental institutions for bipolar disorder,

schizophrenia and substance abuse prior to and following the murder.

Dennis Fritz was an old friend of Williamson’s. He was a substitute teacher at the

elementary school in town. Fritz was a fairly new resident of Ada and did not know

Carter. Dennis Fritz’s only prior criminal charge was for growing and harvesting

marijuana. Like Williamson, no witnesses came forward to state that they saw Fritz at the

Coachlight the night before the murder.

b. Investigation

At the crime scene, police gathered hair and fibers that were found throughout the

apartment. There was one handprint on a four-inch square of sheet rock near the body;

this was gathered for analysis by the OSBI. The police gathered samples from a list of 21

potential suspects in the Ada area to be submitted for analysis. Suspects were also

brought in for questioning and witness testimonies. Detectives Dennis Smith and Gary

Rogers led the investigation. They submitted their samples on January 4, 1983. Although

there was no physical evidence suggesting more than one killer, upon seeing the brutality

of the crime scene, the detectives immediately determined that this was the work of two

people working together.

The results of the samples were delayed due to backlog in the crime lab. During

this time, Smith and Rogers continued with the investigation, searching for any potential

leads. Williamson was not considered a suspect until three months after the murder. On

2

March 7, Rogers brought in Noel Deatherage for questioning; Deatherage had shared a

jail cell with Williamson, both were charged with DUI. During his time in jail,

Deatherage stated that talking about the Carter trial would upset him and end with a fight

(verbal, sometimes physical). This gave Deatherage the impression that Williamson may

have somehow been involved.

After Williamson was arrested on forgery charges, the police subjected him to a

polygraph test. The questions were all primarily surrounding the Carter murder.

Williamson denied any and all involvement and knowledge of the case. During the

interview, Williamson stated that another inmate was a witch and took him to Carter’s

house the night of the murder and that the whole case had been haunting him. When the

police questioned Gore, he stated that he was with Carter at the Coachlight because she

had claimed that Williamson was making her uncomfortable. This statement was not

included in Gore’s original police report. Gore also denied any involvement in Carter’s

murder. Up until this point, the only evidence the state had against Williamson was two

inconclusive polygraph tests and the eyewitness identification from Gore.

After a huge delay, Jerry Peters, an agent for the OSBI, concluded that the bloody

handprint left on the wall was not a match to Carter, Williamson or Fritz. A non-secretor,

meaning that it couldn’t be conclusively matched to anyone, left the semen that was

found in Carter’s body. The hair and fibers that were found were stated to be

microscopically consistent with Fritz and Williamson. It wouldn’t be for another four

years that Peters would change his mind and conclude that the bloody handprint belonged

to Carter. This new finding made the arrests of Fritz and Williamson possible. He did this

after District Attorney, Bill Peterson, came to question his findings.

3

Upon his arrest, Williamson was brought in for one final interview. Although the

police anticipated a confession, no recording devices were used to log the interview.

During this interview, Williamson stated that he had nightmares about the Carter murder

and that he was there with the probable intention to kill her. He later ceased the

confession and asked for an attorney, which immediately halted the confession. This

interview was never signed by Williamson or presented to him upon completion.

c. Trial Proceedings

Because Pontotoc County didn’t have a public defender, the presiding judge

would require the accused to sign a pauper’s oath and he would then assign a local lawyer

as indigent counsel. Barney Ward was assigned to the Williamson case. Bill Peterson

would be the prosecuting attorney. Judge John Miller would be presiding over both the

Fritz and Williamson trial. At the preliminary hearing, Williamson was completely out of

control. He would make frequent outbursts proclaiming his innocence and refused to

calm himself at the request of the judge. After being escorted out of the courtroom twice,

he was brought in a third time; it was then that Williamson requested to stay in his jail

cell during the preliminary hearing.

The defense, prosecution or judge never questioned the issue of Williamson’s

mental capacity. The health records from the many hospitals that Williamson was

checked into were readily available but never used. When Williamson was tried on an

escape charge shortly before he was arrested for the Carter murder, Judge Miller had

ruled Williamson mentally incompetent.

Ward had requested a change in venue for the trial due to the high profile nature

of the case. Judge Miller denied the motion without any explanation. The trial was to be

4

held in the Ada District Courthouse. During the jury selection, Cecil Smith was one of

the candidates selected as a juror. Smith had stated that he had no relation to the

prosecution by kin. It wasn’t until after the Fritz trial began that Greg Saunders, Fritz’s

defense counsel, discovered Smith was a former Ada chief of police. When Saunders

brought forth the motion to declare a mistrial, Judge miller denied the motion.

Once the trial was underway, the prosecution began its argument by presenting

the same video confession from Williamson he had made upon his arrest. The

prosecution had withheld this evidence during discovery. When Ward motioned for a

mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, Judge Miller denied the motion. He

did, however, say that Ward could have a trial hearing on the matter after the Williamson

trial was over. Because there was a miniscule amount of physical evidence, the

prosecution’s case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony. Among these witnesses were

Glen Gore, Terri Holland and Cindy McIntosh. It is worthy to note that all three had been

given lighter sentences for their own respective criminal charges following their

testimony.

After the prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, they called scientific

experts to the stand. Among the most prominent witnesses would be Melvin Hett. Hett

was the analyst of the hair and fiber samples found in Carter’s apartment. It wasn’t until

after Fritz’s trial that Hett had issued a statement claiming that Gore’s hair and fibers

were inconsistent with those found at the scene, just in time to testify at Williamson’s

trial. When it was his turn to testify, he stated that the hairs conclusively matched

Williamson’s. Both Williamson and Fritz and been found guilty on the charge of murder

5

in the first degree. Fritz was sentenced to life in prison. Williamson was sentenced to

death.

d. OCCA Ruling

Because Williamson was sentenced to death, his case automatically appealed to

the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Judge Lumpkin would be the justice who

wrote the opinion regarding the Williamson case. After reviewing several complaints

filed by Williamson, including ineffective defense counsel, prosecutorial misconduct,

hearsay testimony and the credibility of hair and fiber evidence, Lumpkin ruled that

Williamson’s sentenced would be affirmed.

The court states that it is the burden of the appellant to prove that there is

reasonable probability that any unprofessional errors made by the defense counsel would

have resulted in a different ruling. In order to do this, Williamson provides the following

complaints: counsel’s failure to introduce the videotaped confession of Ricky Simmons,

counsel’s failure to fully investigate and utilize evidence regarding his own mental

capacity, and counsel deliberately limiting his participation during the sentencing trial.

The court has a two-part test in order to determine the effectiveness of defense counsel:

the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s

performance negatively prejudiced the defense.

The record stated that counsel’s decision to not bring the confession of Ricky

Simmons into evidence was a tactical decision, although counsel did explore the tape

upon cross-examination. The court ruled that counsel was not ineffective for not

investigating the confession as a means of legal strategy. The State had argued that

because the confession took place during a polygraph examination, the confession would

6

have to be inadmissible. Upon cross-examination, Agent Rogers had concluded that they

could positively exclude Simmons as a suspect in the murder based on the results of the

hair sample analysis.

Ward had stated in an affidavit that he deliberately chose not to pursue the issue

of Williamson’s mental health for the purposes of building a defense and for the

mitigation of punishment. This was despite the fact that counsel was aware of

Williamson’s medications and was in possession of all of his health records.

Supplemental records given to counsel also indicate nine separate affidavits from mental

health professionals stating that they would have testified in court had they been notified

by anyone authorized to do so. The court ruled that the deliberate decision to not

investigate the mental health of the defendant was reliant on the judgment of the defense

counsel. The three reports that counsel utilized during trial indicated that Williamson

possessed a normal level of intelligence and adequate communication skills that would

allow him to stand trial. The court ruled that it is not their place to force defense counsel

to investigate the mental capacity of each of its defendants. Therefore, counsel was not

ineffective for not exploring the mental competency of Williamson; rather, the choice

was a legal tactic used during trial. The court concludes that Williamson failed to prove

that the outcome of the trial would have been significantly altered had counsel

investigated his mental health more comprehensively.

Williamson addressed a variety of pre-trial issues. The first issue was the

argument that the State denied him his rights to due process and a speedy trial. The court

ruled that the five-year time lapse between the murder and the filing of charges was not a

violation of Williamson’s Sixth Amendment rights because Williamson had become the

7

accused once the felony information was filed. The court continues its decision by

explaining that the delay was a result of the prosecution waiting until they could build an

effective case before blindly accusing someone of murder, rather than a tactical delay

made by the State. Williamson also alleges that the State denied him his right to due

process by failing to not grant him expert witnesses to testify in his defense. Williamson

relies on the opinion in Ake v. Oklahoma. The court distinguishes this opinion by stating

that Ake does not extend to include expert witnesses aside from psychiatrists. Like

proving ineffective defense counsel, proving the necessity of expert witnesses relies on

the defendant. The court ruled that Williamson failed to meet his burden because of the

undeveloped assertions contained in his motion. The court elaborates on this opinion by

stating that Williamson’s case was not prejudiced because counsel was given the

opportunity to cross-examine experts provided by the State. Williamson’s final point on

prosecutorial misconduct states that the confession the State used during the trial should

be inadmissible because the confession was not corroborated or consistent with the

physical evidence of the crime. The court relies on Jones v. State to conclude that once

the prosecution establishes evidence of the corpus delicti, the confession of the defendant

is considered admissible evidence. The court elaborates by explaining that corroborative

evidence need not be sufficient or independent of the defendant’s statements.

Williamson addresses the credibility of witness testimonies used during his trial.

Terri Holland originally introduced Williamson’s confession despite the fact that Holland

testified to hearing the confession four years prior to the trial. Williamson argues that

Holland’s statements could not be considered corroborative evidence based on factual

errors and omissions (e.g. defendant had used Carter’s panties to gag her, physical

8

evidence shows that a green washcloth had been used as the gag). The court admits

Holland’s statement and rules that her statement is admissible because the essential facts

of the confession were corroborated with the facts of the crime. Gore, who was one of the

State’s key witnesses during Fritz’s trial, was unable to testify during Williamson’s trial,

making it impossible for defense counsel to cross-examine Gore’s prior criminal charges.

Instead, Gore’s preliminary testimony was read to the jury. Williamson argues that the

State should be required to explain to the jury Gore’s exact reason for not testifying in

court. The court ruled that Williamson failed to prove that Gore’s refusal to testify was an

act of the State; therefore, Gore’s preliminary statement was properly admitted into

evidence.

Williamson makes the argument that the hair and fiber samples used as evidence

against him are unreliable and the validity of the evidence should have been put into

question because of the increasing studies showing that hair matching no longer met the

standards of scientific reliability. The court denies the request and states that the scientific

validity of hair matching should have been introduced upon cross-examination.

Williamson continues his claim by stating that the testimony provided by Hett was

unreliable and prejudicial toward the State. Hett testified that the hairs found on Carter’s

body were “microscopically consistent” with he hair samples provided by Williamson.

However, Hett did not explain that “microscopically consistent” did not equate to an

absolute identification. The source of the hairs could have come from Williamson, but

there is also likelihood that the source of the hairs was someone else. Williamson relies

on the ruling in McCarty v. State; in that case, the expert testimony provided against the

defendant was found to be improper and beyond the present state of the art forensic

9

science and personal knowledge of the expert witness. In Williamson’s case, the court

distinguishes the ruling and states that Hett’s testimony was well within the present scope

of scientific capability, rather than a personal expression of guilt.

e. USDC Ruling

After Williamson’s appeal was denied by the OCCA, his legal team wrote a

petition of habeas corpus and appealed to the U.S. District Court. Judge Seay and his

clerical team read over the petition and ultimately granted the writ. Seay analyzes the

same complaints that Williamson makes in his appeal to the OCCA and determines that

Williamson did not receive a fair trial.

In order to prove that the petitioner received ineffective defense counsel, the

district court follows the same two-part test that was applied by the OCCA. It is the

burden of the petitioner to show first, the counsel’s performance had to be deficient with

reference to prevailing professional norms. Second, the petitioner must prove that the

deficient performance was prejudiced to the defense. The court first examines the issue of

Williamson’s mental competency. Seay states that Williamson’s medical records show

that he has been treated for mental illness since 1979. The records go on to show that

Williamson had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Borderline

Personality Disorder and Paranoid Personality Disorder. Despite all of this information,

counsel refused to pursue the issue because Williamson had been found competent to

stand trial in 1985 (for a separate criminal proceeding). The statements that counsel used

to justify not investigating Williamson’s mental health were incomplete. Although the

OCCA determined those records were enough to prove competency, this court disagrees

with that finding. Because counsel was aware of Williamson’s mental issues, the court

10

decides that counsel’s decision to not further investigate Williamson’s mental health was

based on inadequate information and a misconception of the law. This decision,

therefore, falls outside of the scope of prevailing professional norms. The court also

includes two written letters from Dr. Garcia and Norma Walker. Both letters indicate that

Williamson urgently needed further psychological evaluation and treatment. This should

have been an immediate indication for counsel to seek out mental treatment for his client.

The court also notes that counsel was aware that Williamson had received Social Security

Disability benefits due to his mental illness. The court also relies on Coleman v. Brown in

determining the effectiveness of counsel. The opinion states: “[I]n a capital case the

attorney’s duty to investigate all possible lines of defense is strictly observed.” This

contradicts the notion, as stated by the OCCA, that it is not the court’s responsibility to

force counsel to further investigate issues of mental health. Seay reviews all of the

affidavits counsel received from medical professionals. All indicate that Williamson was

not mentally competent. The court rules that further investigation into Williamson’s

mental health would have surely resulted in acquiring evidence that would have

significantly aided the defense, so much so, that the result of the trial may have been

different. In regards to the confession, counsel filed no motion challenging the

admissibility of the statements Williamson gave. The court finds that the voluntariness of

the confession is highly questionable. According to the records, the confession was given

in 1987. During this time, Williamson was in and out of several different mental

institutions and would sometimes not be on the medications he was given. The court

finds that counsel’s refusal to challenge Williamson’s mental capacity when he waived

11

his rights and gave the dream confession was the most vital proof that Williamson had

received ineffective counsel.

The OCCA had ruled that withholding the videotape of Williamson’s confession

was not a tactical denial of evidence by the State, but rather a delayed disclosure.

Therefore, the withholding of the tape was not a Brady violation. This court cites the

cases that the OCCA used to support this finding and rules that they are distinguishable

form this particular case. Seay states that the records clearly indicate that the videotape

was exculpatory evidence and the video was not given to counsel until after the trial.

Therefore, this was a Brady violation and denial of due process. This court also explores

the State’s witness and lack thereof in certain instances. This court finds that because the

prosecution’s case was built entirely on alleged admissions, it was imperative to the

defense that impeachment of those witnesses be an option. This contradicts the OCCA’s

statement claiming that the State was not required to disclose any reason as to why

certain witnesses were made unavailable to testify. This court rules that, had the taped

confession been made available to the defense, the State’s witnesses would have received

a more thorough cross-examination and the result of the trial would have likely been

different.

This court takes particular note regarding the motivation of Holland’s testimony.

The record states that she testified for both Williamson’s case, and the case against Karl

Fontenot (for the kidnapping, rape and murder of Denice Harraway). Even though

Holland had two prior felony convictions, her sentenced was reduced to five years, with

three of the five years being suspended. This court finds that impeachment of this witness

12

would have been essential to building a defense. The OCCA never addresses these issues

in their opinion.

II. Principal & Agent

a. Definition & Context

The Principal-Agent Model is one method of constructing and analyzing

hierarchical relationships. The principal is a figure that holds an extent of authority over

certain agents. Because the principal and agents have a distinct separation of goals, the

result is often times an output that does not accurately match the original premise of the

task originally assigned by the principal. The difference causing the output is known as

shirking. If the principal detects shirking from the agent, the principal will sanction, or

punish, the agent somehow. This model can be used with multiple principals and agents

as shown in the relationship between the OCCA and the U.S. District Court. Typically in

these situations, the agent will shirk the principal that it believes will punish him less.

b. Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals

In the state of Oklahoma, appellate court judges are chosen through merit

selection. In order to maintain their role in the courts, the appellate judges face retention

election toward the end of their original term. In the case of the OCCA, two principals

can be established: the state of Oklahoma and the federal court system. The goal

hierarchy between the two principals significantly differentiates from one another. For

example, the state of Oklahoma places a burden on its appellate court for strict law

enforcement and little chance of acquittal or appeal. On the other hand, the federal court

system’s goal is for the OCCA to follow the Constitution as interpreted by higher courts

in the federal jurisdiction. The state of Oklahoma is given a heavier influence over how

13

court decisions are upheld because of the people’s power to choose whether a judge

retains his position or not.

c. U.S. District Court of Oklahoma

Judges selected to serve for one of the U.S. District Courts are selected by the

President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, as per the Constitution. A

state senator typically recommends the judges after they’ve served a number of years in

their respective state courts. Federal court judges do not face retention election. Instead,

they enjoy a life term. The U.S. District Courts have only one established principal: The

U.S. Supreme Court. The task assigned to the U.S. District Court is to uphold the

Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In this situation, the goal hierarchy of

the principal and agent are fairly uniform because of the simplicity of the task assigned.

d. Shirking & Outputs

The significant differences between the two court opinions are the result of goal

conflict and shirking on the part of the agent. Because the agent is more likely to shirk

under the principal that is perceived to sanction less, this incentives the agent to prefer

one principal over the other. In this case, the state of Oklahoma has the ability to sanction

the judges on the OCCA by forcing them out of their position via retention election.

Based on the previous polls from past elections, there is a notable pattern between a

judge’s term and his disposition toward crime. Essentially, judges who are the least likely

to be pro-defendant are the ones who typically hold their positions longer. This influences

how the OCCA carries out the task assigned by the federal court jurisdiction.

In contrast, the U.S. District Court judges don’t have to be concerned with

reelection or retention because they serve life tenure. With only one principal to answer

14

to, this makes this particular agent less likely to shirk its duties to fulfill the goals of both

itself and its principal. Once the District Court discovers the shirking done on the part of

the OCCA, they sanction the lower court by striking down their holding and issuing a

new trial for Williamson.

III. Systemic Bias

a. Inherent biases in common law precedent

According to Gallanter, there are two types of players established within the

common law system: one shotters and repeat players. Repeat players are litigators that

often have portfolio disputes and take cases from larger litigants. In criminal cases, the

state is often considered the ultimate repeat player. One shotters are litigators that handle

single disputes for smaller litigants. The common law web seems to favor the repeat

player. In the U.S. criminal justice system, almost all cases go to trial. This results in the

backlogging of court dockets and long delays between filing charges and the trial date.

The typical legal strategy for the one shotter is to maximize award damages or minimize

reimbursement periods. Repeat players won’t usually go to court unless there is a promise

of a positive ruling. This results in most cases being settled outside of court. In criminal

cases, this solution is the result of a plea bargain. This is a situation in which a defendant

enters a certain plea for the guarantee of a less harsh sentence. This method is ideal for

the state because it provides a positive precedent for them while accomplishing the task

of putting away criminals. However, for innocent people caught in this system, the result

is usually much different due to the circumstances. In Williamson’s case, the exercising

of his rights led to him being sentenced to death.

15

b. Interoffice Networking Influence

Because the courts have to deal with an increasing number of cases, they need to

create strategies to efficiently handle the backlog. In order to do this, certain institutional

norms are established to influence the outcome of the criminal justice system. Each

officer of the court plays a role in this institution and can negatively innocent persons

brought into the system by mistake.

Typically, the first person that those faced with criminal charges approach is the

prosecuting attorney. If he or she chooses not to drop the charges, the very next option for

the accused is to take a plea bargain. The majority of accused persons will accept a plea

bargain because it promises them a significantly lesser sentence. This works great for the

state and the accused, if the accused person is, in fact, guilty. In the Williamson case, plea

bargains were utilized to acquire testimonies from convicted criminals in exchange for a

lesser sentence. Almost all innocent people faced with criminal charges will refuse to

accept a plea bargain and exercise their rights to a fair and speedy trial. Unfortunately,

going through with that process has been shown to result in very harsh sentences under

the presumption of being guilty.

Defense counsel has been showed to be involved in this bureaucratic process by

using clients as a means to reach an end. This is especially true of “lawyer regulars”.

These are defense attorneys that appear frequently in the courtroom and rely heavily on

the assistant of law enforcement officials, prosecuting attorneys and judges. These

particular attorneys often handle indigent cases and take on the role of public defender.

Unfortunately, defense counsel will prioritize his relationship with all three of these

institutions over the interests of their client for the purposes of maintaining those

16

organizational structures. If defense counsel has any shred of doubt in the client’s

innocence, they won’t zealously defend their client because it’s simply not worth the time

or effort.

c. Prisoner’s Dilemma

Prisoner’s Dilemma is a situation in which two or more suspects are separated

from each other and asked to confess or incriminate one of the other suspects for a crime.

In most instances, the police will suggest a plea bargain for those who are willing to

confess. Unfortunately, this creates perverse incentives for otherwise innocent people to

testify against each other, or in worse cases, confess to a crime they never committed.

Those caught in a prisoner’s dilemma have two options: remain silent or confess. Those

who stay silent will either face the harshest punishment or be released; there is no middle

ground.

In Williamson’s case, police were interrogating Williamson, Gore and Fritz. Gore

was already facing serious time in prison, and the cops were well aware of this. In

exchange for his testimony, the police offered Gore a lesser sentence. This is a perfect

example of how the Prisoner’s Dilemma will almost always work against innocent

people. This is because those facing time are almost always willing to lie or cheat to

reduce their sentences. Williamson’s silence also proved to work against him; instead of

taking the plea bargain, which could have given him life without parole or less, he went

to trial and was sentenced to death.

17

18