By Patsy R. Brumfield
• Follow courtroom Twitter updates @RealNewsQueen
12:30 P.M. UPATE
ABERDEN – Dr. David Parvin will know by Monday whether he gets out of jail to prepare for a new murder trail in the 2007 shooting death of his wife.
Judge Paul Funderburk told state and defense counsel he will take their issues under advisement after a morning-long hearing in Monroe County.
• • •
ABERDEEN – Prosecutors want to prevent murder defendant David Parvin from freedom while the state and defense prepare for a new trial.
His attorneys insist he deserves bail and is not a danger to himself or anyone else, they told a circuit judge today in Aberdeen.
Parvin, 74, insists his wife’s 2007 shooting death at their home was accidental.
Before the Mississippi Supreme Court overturned his 2011 conviction, he was serving a life sentence in a state prison in Meridian.
The state’s highest court also ordered a new trial after deciding that certain evidence presented by and based on evidence from controversial pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne should not have been allowed because it was not within his area of expertise.
Parvin is represented by Tupelo attorneys Jim Waide and Rachel Pierce Waide. Assistant District Attorneys Paul Gault and Nebra Porter are prosecutors.
Circuit Judge Paul Funderburk approved a $75,000 bond for Parvin shortly after his release from state prison, but he revoked it when Parvin got into a scuffle with a deputy at the Monroe County Jail.
The bail-request documents claim Parvin was not a danger to himself or the community, but rather was angered because he thought he should be released immediately.
In its April 11 ruling, the supreme court said that while trial mistakes were sufficient to throw out Parvin’s conviction, questions still lingered about Joyce Parvin’s death and required a new trial for answers.
Legal rights groups and others continue to question the outcome of cases in which Hayne has testified, attacking his credentials, his investigative methods and testimony under oath.
The Mississippi Innocence Project is among Hayne’s critics, leading appeal efforts to free several persons it’s determined to be innocent of murder charges.
In Parvin’s briefs to the court, his attorneys insist his continued incarceration is causing him psychological harm and hinders his ability to meet with them to prepare for trial. They also insist his jailing amounts to punishment before trial, which they say is unconstitutional double jeopardy.
• • •
(Below is a running account of Friday’s hearing before Judge Funderburk. Some of the details are paraphrased. Please excuse the typos and other glitches likely from my typing rapidly.)
9:45 – Attorneys, Parvin enter courtroom. Parvin is wearing a two-piece yellow Monroe County Sheriff’s Office jail suit with white tennis shoes and a white t-shirt. Parvin walks into the audience to chat with three elderly people. Jim Waide joins him.
Sheriff Cecil Cantrell and other law enforcement officials enter.
10:08 – Judge arrives, calls case for the bond hearing.
GAULT and RACHEL WAIDE say they are ready to proceed.
GAULT: Calls Cecil Cantrell, sheriff. (Attorneys say rule is not invoked, which means witnesses can remain in the courtroom.)
(Gault – asks him about June 25 incident.) Cantrell – Parvin brought into jail that day. Not there when incident occurred. Understood chief deputy was attacked by Mr. Parvin. Removed himself to back where Parvin was. (At that time, describe Parvin) He was upset, belligerent making demands. Just .. behavior was bad. (Tried to calm him?) I did. (Did you call his attorney for him?) Yes, sir, I did. (Effect?) Well, at that time, Waide and he talked. I could tell having heated conversation. Mr. Waide just trying to calm him down.
(As part of your duty, you have authority to approve certain bonds?) Yes. (As result of Parvin being granted bond or ability to do so, had you communicated with his brother?) Not directly, with Mr. Waide. (Going back to that day, after that phone conversation… did his attorney and brother come to jail?) Yes, they did. When they came, I explained to Mr. Waide and his brother that he was very upset, acting strange. We needed to go back there. We did. They also agreed he was acting strangely. Not coherent. They had words (brother and Parvin)… could tell it was not good.
(After he was returned to cell, did you communicate with brother about bond?) Yes, he said wouldn’t sign bond at that time. (Why?) Because of behavior, I think so. (Previously had agreed to go bond?) Yes. (Did Waide not wish him to be released that day?) Yes, way I understand it. (You observed situation. True that you didn’t feel comfortable with his release?) No, I did not.
JIM WAIDE: (Sheriff, June 25, we had already talked about brother signing bond?) Yes. Had already approved it. (When learned he was irate, did deputies say it was because he thought he wasn’t suppose to be in jail?) Yes sir. (I yelled at him too?) Yes you did. (I wasn’t very calm either?) yes. (Rachel and I talked to you about getting a doctor to see him?) Yes sir. (Arranged for Dr. Overstreet to visit with him?) Yes. sir. (Did you agree with that?) Yes, I did.
(That’s June 25. He’s been there a couple of months.) Yes. (Tell about his behavior since?) No more trouble. He’s been real good since then. No problems.
JUDGE ASKS: (Recall time?) Sheriff says it was afternoon. (I issued appearance bond for $75,000 bond. Brother signed for it day before incident. Asks about the bond … it had been made through and filed with clerk prior to the incident?) Yes sir. (Judge hands to clerk to file. Asks Waide if he’s seen it… says yes.)
(Asks sheriff … this is a hearing to approve another one. After incident, do you recall… you called me?) Yes sir. (Related for record what you told me about Mr. Parvin and his actions, thoughts on his release?) Yes sir… by way he was acting, treating others, being belligerent, I didn’t think he was safe to be out there … to be out on bond, way he was acting. (At that time… based on your information to me, I advised you to hold him until I could speak with law clerk, Gault also Waide and Ms. Waide?) Yes sir.
(After that, I told you I was revoking it and for you to hold him without bond?) Yes sir.
Gault says has no more questions.
WAIDE: (Asks sheriff … about two months since incident, talk with staff. Hav eyou change your opinion now as to whether he is dangerous or what?) Well, I back up… that day, seriousness of charge … if I’d known he was going to act that way, I never would have approved his bond. I had no choice to call judge and ask to look closer. (What I want to know… don’t want to put you on spot. But as we are here today… since that day … do you have opinion about bond now?) I don’t have an opinion today. I don’t want to say yes or no. I’m not a psychiatrist or doctor. They would know more than I would.
GAULT: (Sheriff, briefly … no question … about since the incident. That said, sheriff, what is your opinion of how he behaves when he’s …?) I’ve seen him… when talking he can just snap. I am just being honest. Can change completely.
Sheriff steps down. 10:25 a.m.
STATE CALLS BRUCE WEST
WEST: (Gault questions.) West is a Monroe County deputy, transport. (Transported Parvin multiple times?) Yes. (Given you trouble?) Not a minute’s trouble. (June 25 from Meridian?) Yes. (Conversation with him?) Yeh, we talked a lot on way back. Casual conversation. Talked about ball games. About MSU playing in World Series. (Did he say would watch it?) One time, he said making good time so he could get bonded out and call daughter and they could watch the ballgame that night.
WAIDE (Did I hear you say he hasn’t given you any trouble?) That’s right. (He thought he was about to get out of jail?) Yes, soon as he got back would be released. (No other dealings?) Stayed in booking room, talked to jailer. Went up front to see if his brother was there to bond him out. (Any further dealings?) Took him to Starkville to heart doctor, two trips. Went back with him for tests. Not a minute’s trouble. Made three trips with him. (So, no violence?) None whatsoever. 10:29
STATE CALLS CHRIS REEVES
NEBRA PORTER TO QUESTION: Reeves, probation officer for State of MS.
(In booking area June 25?) Yes. Observed … speaking with chief deputy. Somebody in lockdown room beating on other side of door. Deputy went to open door to find out what was going on. (Was it loud?) Approximately 8 feet away. Loud. It was beating, a banging. Chief Knight pushed the buzzer. When opened door, Parvin stepped into opening. Had his hands…very irate about medication, getting out of there. Trying to push Knight out of the way. Finally, got him back in the room and door closer. (How close were you to Knight at the time?) Shoulder to shoulder. (Pried Parvin’s hands off door?) Yes, other hand on Chief Knight … on his left side … Knight kept pushing hand away.
(With your assistance, got Parvin back in cell?) Yes. (Next?) Got door closed, I backed up. Went about my business. Saw sheriff with cell phone. Sheriff went to talk to Parvin, said had attorney on phone to explain. Handed him phone. Things were said. He was irate and got worse and worse. Finally sheriff got phone back and they closed the door. (After?) Nothing after that. He made a statement to me while trying to get him off… remembered me from murder trial. Something about shaking me. I let it go. Later, I questioned him about it.
(Saw Parvin that day?) Yes. Irate, flat out angry, dangerous, aggressive. Oobserved him with hands on Chief Knight. (See him after that?) I did. At sheriff dept again. Coming back… passed single cell, Parvin called to me. I walked over. He said apologize for what happened the other day. I said I accepted. He said he remembered me from murder trial. Told me to have a nice day. Said I had to go. (Since then?) Haven’t spoken with him since.
WAIDE: (Looking at your statement … notice you said, when he had hand on Knight, was trying to push his way out of room? Was it cell?) It’s a room with one-way mirror, where put people under investigation. They can’t get out. That’s the one. (He was screaming about medication, said he could leave because court said he could?) Yes. (As far as statements he made … was upset about medication and that court had said he could go? Anything else?) That… I don’t know anything else. All I heard him say. (Threats to you?) I said I didn’t take it as a threat. I don’t know about what he meant about shaking me … or about remembering me. I didn’t take it as a threat. I was in audience at his trial.
(Anything else you know that we haven’t covered?) Not that I can think of. (Do you know when take heart meds, important to take it on time?) All I know is my own blood pressure med and can take it any time. 10:39
STATE CALLS CURTIS KNIGHT
(Gault – Job?) Knight says he’s chief deputy at MOnroe County Sheriff’s Office. (Asks about trip to Meridian to interview Louis Elliott?) Yes, recall that. (Gault says Elliott called AG’s Office … said defendant admitted some wrongdoing about killing his wife?) Yes received a letter from him. (Turned out … letter was proved to be inaccurate? Said he didn’t write it?) Yes. (But he did bunk with Parvin?) Yes. But proceeded to interview him. (Did you learn Parvin attacked him in jail?) Yes, he said he didn’t know why. Stated Parvin … got up and tried to swing at him and Elliott took Parvin to the floor. An officer witnessed it … Parvin was found guilty. (Court received this morning… inmate records. Elliott younger than Parvin?) Yes sir. Elliott said … Parvin in a blind rage.
WAIDE – We have the statement. That’s the best evidence. I don’t think all this other stuff is appropriate.
JUDGE – Well, as I said earlier… OVERRULED.
(Gault confers with Porter… one more point on interview with Elliott… he is much younger than Parvin?) Yes. (Shape?) Fairly good physical shape. Elliott said he couldn’t understand blind rage… why older man would attack a much younger man… with officer standing there. (Gault hands him a document. Transcript of interview with Elliott?) Yes sir. (From sheriff’s office recording?) At correctional facility in Meridian. (Puts document into evidence.)
(Gault – State exhibits 1, 2, 3?) Yes. (Look at Exhibit 1?) Copy of letter from Parvin to his daughter, Amy. Contents … he’s asking if she’s seen Supreme Court ruling. Talks about his legal costs… cost of re-trial. (Specifically … does Parvin indicate that she misunderstood him about getting over this?) Yes. (Does he say she should tell DA that?) Yes. (Does he makes a threat to her?) Yes. (That’s a copy. You saw original?) Yes. Same.
(Second letter … I showed you from Dr. Parvin?) Yes. (Read it.) Parvin… paraphrase… says having fun in Monroe Jail. Hears he will be at the re-trial. Asks which entrance Gault will use at new trial. Parvin says he will be better prepared this time.
(Exhibit 3 – what is it? Understand you weren’t in trial audience. Look at this transcript. From Parvin’s cross-examination… read lines 6-12.) Parvin …wants… [CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE’S SAID.] (Gault enters into evidence)
(Officer Knight … as lead investigator… aware that before Parvin’s return to Monroe jail… that part of condition of bond, to have no contact with daughter?) Yes. (Ask about June 25.) We were in door at booking room talking… banging on door of holding cell. Loud. I went to see what was going on. As soon as I opened door, Mr. Parvin grabbed me, trying to push me out door. I tried to push him back. He was irate, cussing, hollering, Mentioned something about medicine. Supreme Court. Pushing back and forth. Tried to explain to him … calm down, there’s a process to book you out. He didn’t listen. Constant … he was irate. He tried to push through me and get out the door. Told him to stop. (Officer Reeves nearby?) At end, when eh was holding on to door frame … (Took Reeves’ help to get him back?) Yes.
(When he had hand on you… where were his hands?) On my shoulders. At first grabbed shirt. (Did you feel he needed to be out?) No. At that moment… dealt with rowdy inmates. At that time, I felt threatened. Felt he could do some harm.
WAIDE: (Talked about things… only one witnessed, jail incident?) Yes. (Looked at statement … he didn’t ever hit you?) No sir. (He was expressing …. about Supreme Court found him not guilty, he was a free man and you didn’t have the right to keep him locked up?) Yes. (About meds?) Yes. … mentioned, not sure in what way. (Remember, saying suppose to have it at 9 a.m.?) No sir. It wasn’t that calm a conversation. (He was really upset? All about didn’t think he should be in jail?) Yes sir. (Everything he did was related to efforts to get out of holding area?) Yes. (You were chief investigator in this case, gathering evidence?) Yes. (REason why you went to see Elliott?) Yes.
(Waide – interview with Elliott … page 8 he indicates that Parvin putting money on other inmates other cards for canteen?) Yes sir. Believe is John Berry and Mr. McComb, I think. (Ask why?) No sir. (Elliott… wasn’t getting money?) Stated not. (You understood that some inmate had written to AG, saying Parvin confessed to wife’s murder. Why you went there?) Yes. (In statement, Elliott … said he was an accident. Never told him he murdered her?) Right. Said it was an accident. (Polygraph… you were present for Elliott?) Yes. (He was asked about accident etc. He was truthful?) Yes. (Also truthful that Parvin neverf saidf anything incriminating?) Right. (He wasn’t asked about altercation with Parvin?) No.
(Did he say Elliott was found not guilty of any altercation?) Yes. (But Parvin initially found …?) My understanding that one of gentlemen … Berry or other… file legal papers against Parvin. Ended up not getting a violation. (Did you talk to any guards about Parvin?) No sir. (Other things … you have no knowledge of but attached as exhibits. Only thing about violence was statement at trial… wish he had a bullet when he was examining shotgun.) Yes. (Could be taken as a threat?) Yes, i take it.
(Do you remember Parvin insisting… that state claims did not happen?) I haven’t seen it in transcript, I don’t know. Didn’t attend all of trial. (As chief deputy, do you deal much with inmates?) If there’s a problem between staff and inmate, I’ll go back and find out what’s causing it, try to solve it. (Nature of being in jail is stressful?) Yes sir. (Not really uncommon for fights and altercations in jail?) I can’t say … very few incidents between staff and inmates. (Between inmates?) We have had several, can’t give a number. Hasn’t been that hight.
(Waide -understand about staff. But inmate to inmate altercations … you ahve a lot of expeirence in law enforcement. As far as altercations among inmates… ever been basis to deny bail?) I don’t know. 11:05
(Waide – so far as your personal dealings with Parvin, anyproblems since first incident?) No. I try to avoid any contact with him or any other inmates in case I’ve had part of. Since that day, no contact with him. I avoid it. (Talk about letter to daughter … recall mention that he had phone records to show that woman/affair with lied?) Yes. (She claimed he said he told her his wife killed herself. Recall?) I don’t. (Remember he had phone records about her call, that it never occurred?) Yes.
GAULT (Asks Knight … June 25, Parvin did not hit you?) Correct. (But you were holding him back with assistance?) Yes. (He was gripping door frame?) Yes. (Even though he was allowed bond and would have been released … he was non-compliant with law enforcement that day?) Yes. (You said it’s rarity for fight between inmate and jail staff?) Yes, rare inmate puts hands on staff member. (Behavior that day … do you feel like safe to release him?) No.
STATE NO FURTHER WITNESSES (Gault asks court to consider letter to the judge in court file July 4, 2013 from defendant. He calls incident a scam. To consider the letter in the file. Finally, … in light of fact that court just received MDOC records, asks court to consider rules violation … attempt at striking MDOC personnel, a fight with Elliott and disregard of rules violations.) 11:11
JUDGE – Letter from defendant by mail to clerk. To Waide do you have a copy? (Waide- I’m sure I do. Whatever your honor considers relevant.) Mark letter as exhibit. On Aug. 9 2013 – joint motion for subpoenas … asking court for order authorizing MDOC records for inmate and medical files of Parvin. Court received records yesterday. Today, provided copies to counsel of record. Court proposes to have the motion and order for records and the records received … marked as exhibit composite for this hearing. NO OBJECTIONS.
WAIDE CALLS DR. OVERSTREET
(WAIDE TO QUESTION) Dr. Raymond Overstreet, psychiatrist. [Overstreet speaks very softly… now talking into mic] [He tells about his medical education and experience. Board certified. Practices in Columbus, 27 years. Tells judge about his practice. Mental health center work, clinics, at senior care unit in Aberdeen.]
(Waide – Do you perform exams for court about dangerous persons?) Yes, doing that about 27 years, varying times. (Need doc opinion to commit someone?) Either requires two doctors, if person is a danger. Then goes before the judge to make final decision. (Done that?) Quite a number. (How go about making that determination?) First want to rule out underlying psychiatric problems that would affect their judgment, ability to make good decisions… bipolar etc. Then I look at patient’s history … evidence of a pattern of violence or uncontrollable behavior. Trouble with the law, domestic violence, other altercations with violence. Try to get a history to get feeling for person. Talk to person to try to understand his frame of mind. What triggers his emotions. Then, look at circumstances. Unusual or normal.
(Waide – Before examined Parvin, did you know him?) No. Know his brother Steve.. not very well… just doctor in Starkville, knew his wife. Nothing much. (Did Dr. Steve call you to examine his brother?) Yes. (When?) Called about a week before made examination July 5. (Saw him at jail?) Yes. (Saw him recently?) Yes, Aug. 21. (How much time July 5?) ABout 2 1/2 hours. (Did I tell you about him before?) Yes. Knew he had been initially convicted of murdering his wife. Supreme Court overturned. Now he was in Monroe jail. Had been questions about his release because of questions as danger. Altercation on 25th. Wanted to evaluate whether he was a danger to himself or others. (Wanted your honest opinion?) Yes. (We weren’t hiring you as expert, would be paid by his insurance/) Yes.
(How did you conduct it?) Went over those things mentioned. Talked to him, got history, his take on the events. What he saw going on. How affected him. Sense of whether underlying psychiatric disorder. Better idea of his mental state at the time. (What about Aug. 21?) BAsically, since initial exam, I got more information from you with documents presented today. Talked to him more about these incidents, explanation. GEt a better sense of what might have contributed to those events. (You talked with mea bout testifying today… you said we’d need to pay you?) Yes. (We are doing that?) Yes, Dr. Parvin brought the check over.
(Tell judge what you found with David Parvin?) My finding was that I do not think he is a danger to himself or others. Based … didn’t see any underlying psychiatric disorder… not psychotic behavior or dimentia or anything else. Felt that based on history … no violent behavior. Incidents reported had a lot to do with circumstances he was under and to some degree his underlying personality. Well, Dr. Parvin tends to … be rather arrogant at times. Feels like he has an answer to most things. Way he sees it is way it should be. He’s used ot being independent and in controll. Gets frustrated when things don’t go way he thinks they should. So. I think that plays into the situation that he’s currently in.
(Tell judge – did he insist about angles and telling judge?) He tried to do that. He stopped when I told him that’s not what I was there for. He was insistent on his innocence and way he was seeing things. (Why did you say, in your opinoin, he is not a danger?) Well, to me, biggest question: Is he danger when he is out of jail? Only incidence I have known … in the jail setting, which is different from being out in public. At jail, it’s stressful. Can cause people to act differently when they have other options. Don’t have many options to deal with frustration or anger in jail. Sense of being on guard, suspicious, watchful. Heightened sense of defensiveness. One thing, about Elliott … Parvin’s story is a little different. One incident. Reversed also. Was incident he admitted he got very angry with nurse at jail because he felt like they weren’t listening to him or wouldn’t see him., He got angry about that. He’s careful about his medications and his heart condition. INsistent he gets meds as prescribed. Other incident, of course, on June 25 … looking at that, I tried to take into consideration the circumstances. He’d been in jail amost two years, charge overturned. His expectation was he would be going home, geting meds, no more time in jail. He’s the type, he has all paperwork with him, knows it in and out. FElt he wasn’t being listned to. Was being drug out. His feeling. He was being held wrongly.
(Overstreet … when placed in the cell, he was gettin gmore anxious, BP going up, worried about medication. Tried to call with intercom, felt it was turned off. Why he banged on the door. When deputies approached… again, a lot had to do with feeling of frustration… no control, it was unfair … he reacted to that. (Waide – absent being in jail or wrongfully imprisoned… how affect his attitude about danger?) Again, based on history… I don’t see that being a danger. More to himself in jail than he is out of jail because of the circumstances … how it affect his stress level.
(Waide – Tell me about … you looked at his prison medical records?) Just glanced at them… looking for meds or diagnoses, or problems. For some reason, they diagnosed dimentia or Alzheimers. For some reason it was dropped. He scored high so doesn’t qualify for dementia. Saw nothing like that. Has diagnosis of depressive disorder and was given prozac, started after death of second wife. Understand he’s no longer on prozac. (Alcoholic?) He told me that. Was indicated at one point. Says he hasn’t had anything to drink in years. Active in AA. (Familiar with it? Regular sessions?) Yes. He said close to his sponsor, good support group through AA. Had helped him alot with sobriety, dealing with things in general.
GAULT – (Testimony about exams for chancery court?) Yes. (Is it correct that you’re looking at danger to themselves or others. Is that basic focus of that examination?) For commitments, that’s kind of the bottom line. Interpretation can be different. (When look to make that determination in chancery setting, you’re doing that to see if a psychotic or mental condition makes them dangerous?) Main part of it. (You can’t … in your expertise …. you only determine danger based on a psychotic or mental condition?) Not necessarily. I’ve seen people with varying anxieties. You look for signs of danger to self or others. They don’t have to be psychotic or mentally ill. (Issues you stated … anxiety, marital problems, etc. … if someone deals with those issues and calls your office for appointment … would that be something you’re comfortable dealing with?) Question about person who might be a danger? (Yes.) Yes. I would or might refer to another therapist.
(If you dealt with it or referred it, in some way related to your field … mental or emotional or psychotic?) Yes. (Not going to treat someone for marital counseling?) No, I don’t do that. Limited my practice to certain areas. (Do you agree there are people who commit violent acts who don’t have mental health issues?) Yes. (IN those cases, diagnosis would mean little?) Um, I don’t know. You still try to understand the person. Try to look for patterns of behavior or emotional reaction that would help you know. Maybe they were from a violent home and only way they know to react. Try to evaluate all of that. (Not saying you wouldn’t be able to identify such a scenario …?) No, not saying I could absolutely.
(Parvin described as frustration issues, not in control?) Yes, he gets frustrated. He’s got a range of reactions, from what he told me. He didn’t react to majority of things in a violent way. (You can’t conclusively way how Parvin will react?) Couldn’t say that for anyone with 100 percent accuracy, including Dr. Parvin. 11:45
(You refer to meetings with Parvin as information received from Waide…did you speak to Parvin’s brother about his history or past?) We had a brief conversation when he called for an evaluation. Don’t really remember anything specific. (Anyone else in family?) No I haven’t. (Daughters, about his reactions to other situations?) I know he told me at times he’d gotten upset with his brother over issues … but as far as threats, I asked Dr. STeven Parvin if he’d seen threats. He said no. Only one I talked to.
WAIDE: No re-direct. 11:47 Tells just has 2 other witnesses and Dr. Steve Parvin.
Judge – let’s take brief break until noon.
• • •
12:04 – Judge returns to courtroom.
Waide – Stipulation about a witness. That Ms. Block has had regular dealing with Dr. Parvin while he has been in Monroe County Jail. She considers him “A very nice man.” GAULT – That is what we will stipulate.
WAIDE – Asks court to receive statements from Dr. James Laurenson of Alabama and Joseph M. Salam, of Alabama Crime Lab. To effect, that no angles can be figured from an autopsy, which is the opposite of what Dr. Hayne said at trial. They also say no scientific evidence to discount what Dr. Parvin says about that.
GAULT – Well, think court hs made clear that rules to this proceeding … content of the affidavits disagree with … don’t have an objection to their admission for the purposes of this hearing.
JUDGE – Court will receive them.
WAIDE – TENDERS Exhibit 3 … that Joyce Parvin left all her property to her children. That Dr. Parvin had no interest in her estate, documents show. Asks to receive that into evidence. GAULT – State’s objection is relevant, did not present that. No other objection, other than state doesn’t allege that.
JUDGE – Getting a little far afield, given nature of this hearing, but will receive them.
WAIDE – With that, defense rests.
JUDGE – Anything else? Gault – no other evidence to present.
JUDGE – Will allow each of you to make your arguments. Made your positions clear.
GAULT – Certainly will try to limit statements to crux of issues. One thing not referenced, but is important, relating to bond – that state was unaware of at time motion was filed … Deputy West testified … had a good relationship with the defendant. But he did testify on way back from correctional facility, Parvin discussed calling daughter about watching the MSU ballgame. As court pointed out … bond was signed on June 24. Order … signed prior to that. But defendant articulated a knowingly violating a direct order of this court. State also feels it should point out that … procedural history toward Parvin’s bond. Did not object after indictment. But after MSSC mandate, state did not object. Certainly considers right to bond very serious. Although many of the actions discussed happened prior to the mandate. State tried to do everything reasonable to allow bond in this case. But … at time of incident… it was unknown that defendant directly referenced violating order of court.
But the attack on chief deputy… state had no choice but to ask court to revoke the bond. Took two law personnel to put Parvin back in the cell. Parvin wrote this court called this incident a “scam.” That’s dated July 4. Contrary to the truth. He apologized to Mr. Reeves. Also, letter to daughter in evidence. At very least, the troubling statement he made to me during the trial and later letter. Erratic behavior … Overstreet says it’s not his experience of testifying about people who are not dangerous without a mental illness. He admits there are dangerous people without mental illness. No statements that Parvin is mentally ill. But his actions show he is unfit for bod.
Also, based on factors … state addressed in brief … direct evidence in this case as key element to crime of murder… homicide did occur. Of course, trial court sat over this trial and heard the extent of all the evidence. But cite Blackwell case… allows court to look at demeanor, tone, expression along with evidence. This court sat and presided over the first case. Motive was shown. Direct evidence was linked. Setting scientific evidence aside, completely implausible story was told by defense. Obviously, MSSC considered scientific evidence in its reversal. State feels proof … is great.
Point this out… from Blackwell opinion, burden on this court … is not a finding of an impossibility of acquittal. At trial, if state’s witnesses are to be believed, this individual will be found guilty of murder. If believes defense, could be manslaughter or acquitted. Not a requisite finding or an impossibility of acquittal. It says judge is in best position to handle those decisions. Court heard witnesses, testimony about defendant’s behavior.
At end of day … as he conducts himself… by disregarding this court’s order, by exhibiting violent behavior, he is unfit for bond. Even in this situation, he had bond. But proved himself unfit for bond.
WAIDE – Counsel’s comments that he had bond but proved himself unfit … must be about statements to his daughter. Parvin is extremely hard of hearing. One of the most difficult things. I’d almost best he can’t hear me now. That he violated court order … grave doubts he intended to violate court order. He continues to say y’all are in violation because of MSSC order. Don’t think it’s a proper issue and don’t see it raised in the briefs.
What I believe is appropriate… is the standard of proof. We are faced with proof evident and presumption great. In all deference to this court, the MSSC … in reversing, has been very clear that it does not consider this a case of overwhelming evidence of guilt. They said he testified contrary to state witness. .. said distance cannot be determined. Then Parvin said it was 4 feet. State cannot now go back and say try to get Hayne to change his opinion. MSSC says must stick with his testimony. Woman he had an affair with said he said something inconsistent. He has the phone records and no such call was made. But in any event their case will come from guilty former person he had an affair with.
Normally, your honor would base opinion on witnesses. But now, MSSC has reviewed and explained they don’t say overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Shouldn’t even get to second – danger to others. MS Legislature says… about danger. They say it takes medical testimony. I’ve been around Dr. Parvin more. I can certainly say he is arrogant, he’s overbearing in describing his version of events. Not basis for denying bail. State has had ample time to get medical proof to the opposite opinion. Must have doctor’s certification before he can be confined.
Two prongs – proof, danger. We say it’s a federal constitutional requirement. Must have clear and convincing evidence. They haven’t presented that. 12:27 p.m.
JUDGE – Gault, anything else?
GAULT – State and defense have varying opinions on MSSC reversal. But definition of harmless error is inapplicable. Nothing like that. IN this case, medical evidence will be an issue going forward. But we reiterate … before he was even out … Dr. Overstreet’s testimony is irrelevant as to his duty in chancery court to determine if someone is a danger regarding mental conditions. He cannot determine everyone who is a danger. Many people in this system who are dangerous and have no mental illness. One plea day can convince an observer of this.
JUDGE – I’m going to take this under advisement. Will have written order to you by Monday.
HEARING ENDS 12:30 p.m.
• • •