THE SINCLAIR CASE

Chapter Thirteen: Prosecutorial Misconduct At Its Worse

With a jury primed to convict in place, Ralph Roy had every reason to be confident when he rose to face the jurors to give them the prosecution’s version of the crime in his Opening Statement:

“The State will show that on Sunday, December 5^th, 1965, that at a little after 8:00 p.m., this accused, Billy Wayne Sinclair, while armed with a .22 caliber revolver, after having had Pak-A-Sak Store located at 7925 Greenwell Springs Road here in this parish, under surveillance, and with the intent of robbing the manager on duty at that time, namely J.C. Bodden, entered the store, pointed the weapon at Mr. Bodden and told him to open the cash register. Mr. Bodden answered that he did not have the key. During this time two customers walked into the store and the accused, at gun point, told these customers that they would be shot if they caused any trouble.

“After demanding that the cash register be opened again, the accused fired one shot, at which time Mr. Bodden again asked the intruder to leave the store. The accused again asked Mr. Bodden to open the cash register, and Mr. Bodden again begged him to leave, saying that he could not open the cash register. At this time the accused fired another shot. Mr. Bodden then told the accused that the employee who was working on the outside at the time had the only key to the cash register.

“At this time the accused called through a sliding door to the employee outside to come inside. At that time Mr. Bodden started walking toward the door and remarked that the accused was shooting paper bullets or paper wads. As Mr. Bodden walked toward the accused, the accused again shot two more times. Mr. Bodden fell mortally wounded and died immediately. He had been shot in the thigh and in the chest, the bullet entry into the chest having severed the arch of the aorta causing immediate death. The accused then calmly walked to his automobile.”

That was indeed the portrait of a “cool and calm” killer.

According to Roy, I walked into the store, demanded money, fired at least four shots inside the store - one of which struck Bodden in the chest and another in the thigh - and calmly walked to a getaway car.

The prosecutor then presented three perjured witnesses to support that prosecutorial narrative–the Sampites and Sullivan.

The Sampites were the first to testify.

Grundy Sampite was the first of the “two customers” referred to by Roy that entered the store during the robbery attempt. His testimony placed me inside the store. He said he heard only two shots fired inside the store. Roy then elicited the following testimony from him about what I did after those shots were fired.

“And about this defendant, what was he doing?”

“He walked around casually, and got into his car, backed around.”

“He didn’t run?”

“No, sir.”

“Just walked.”

Katherine Sampite supported her husband version of the events.

“And what this did fellow do, Sinclair?” Roy asked her.

“He walked off and got in his car and took off.”

English also briefly questioned Mrs. Sampite about whether I ran to the car.

“Did you see anyone run and get in a car with this license number?” English asked.

“No, he didn’t run, he took his time.”

“You mean he just walked away?”

“That’s right.”

English’s unpreparedness for trial was made evident by those questions to Mrs. Sampite. He should not have revisited the walk, not run, issue with her. It simply gave her another opportunity to reiterate her previous testimony that I walked outside the store. The walking away endorsed the cool and calm killer narrative presented through her husband’s testimony.

Roy used the cool and calm killer narrative to demonstrate a “specific intent to kill” on my part. He understood that it took only one juror to believe the robbery attempt had been abandoned when I fled from the store to lose a death penalty verdict. That would have taken the case outside the felony murder doctrine. So, as a backup, he had to show a specific intent to kill to make the crime death penalty eligible.

And that is precisely why Roy stressed the cool and calm killer narrative in his closing argument:

“Then [Sinclair] gets in the car, he walks slowly away, he is very cool and calm. He is experienced and anti-social like the doctor said. He believes in getting things for himself. When you believe that way, you want something for nothing. You are selfish, even the doctor will admit that. The natural consequence is you will hurt somebody else to get what you want.”

English let the cool and calm killer narrative go uncontested to the jury during his closing argument. He actually did not have much choice. The willful suppression by Roy of the Jones, Neyland and Kennard statements deprived the jury of the opportunity to weigh my fleeing from the store as Bodden chased me. That fleeing outside the store moved the crime from murder to manslaughter.

In his opening statement, Roy had told jurors that two customers entered the store during the robbery attempt, yet he put only one of those “customers” on the witness stand: Grundy Sampite. He did not mention why he did not called the second customer, Donald Lee Jones who had given the police a statement that completely contradicted Grundy Sampite’s version of the events.

English was so unprepared, so unskilled that he failed to either question Grundy Sampite about that other customer or move the court to have the name of the customer disclosed by Roy.

Roy had also referred to another employee (Ray Neyland) “working outside” the store in his opening statement.

English did not explore anything about that second employee with either Katherine Sampite who was also outside the store and would have had a clear view of Neyland or by moving the court to have Roy disclose the name of the second employee.

Had English taken any of those legal actions, the issue of suppressing mitigating evidence would have become the centerpiece of the trial.

But perhaps English’s most egregious tactical blunder was his cross examination of the medical examiner that performed the autopsy on Bodden.

Roy charged in his Opening Statement that Bodden was shot inside the store in the chest and that the bullet nicked the arch of the aorta resulting in death. The medical examiner, however, testified that the fatal bullet entered under Bodden’s left armpit, traveled across the chest cavity, and severed the aorta.

English did not realize the significance of this medical testimony designating the location of the fatal entry wound under the left armpit, not in the chest as Roy had stated

“I went to the Baton Rouge General Hospital and examined Mr. Bodden,” Dr. Chester. Williams testified. “His body had been moved to the morgue at the hospital. I conducted an autopsy on him there. I estimated the time of his death at approximately 8:00 p.m. on December 5^th, 1965. His height was five feet, eleven inches, and his weight was approximately two hundred and ten pounds. He had a bullet entry under the right anterior axilla, that is the arm pit. It went straight across the body and severed the arch of the aorta. That’s the main vessel coming from the heart to take the blood to the body. Correction, the bullet entered in the left arm pit, went across, severed the aorta, and ended up in the right chest cavity, in the free chest cavity. It had perforated the lung also. It was a .22 caliber slug. I gave it to sheriff’s office to take to the State Crime Lab for ballistics tests. There was another entry of another shot in the right lateral upper thigh with the exit wound ten inches from where it entered. It did no real harm.”

The fatal entry wound under the left armpit was consistent with Bodden chasing me outside the store waving a broom above his head. Donald Ray Kennard attested to that fact in his 1984 affidavit. The fatal wound under the left arm pit completely undermined the prosecutorial narrative that I shot Bodden in the chest in cold blood inside the store.

And a minimally effective cross-examination by English of the Sampites would have led him to Jones and Neyland, both of whom gave statements to investigators that would have supported a “running away” defense, placing the crime in a manslaughter orbit.

Jones, for example, told the police he arrived at the store shortly after 8:00 p.m. He walked to the bread area and then back toward the check-out counter.

“Look out,” Bodden suddenly called out to him. “He’s got a gun.”

Jones told the investigators the “intruder” then pointed a gun at him and said:

“If you don’t want to get shot, get over there.”

Jones also told investigators that the intruder was trying to get Neyland inside the store.

“’C’mon in here, boy!’” Jones quoted the intruder as saying.

Jones was right.

I wanted Neyland inside the store and away from the doorway. He was unknowingly blocking my only way out the store.

“While the intruder was looking outside the store,” the Offense Report quoted Jones as saying, “Mr. Bodden rushed him and the intruder fired one shot, hitting an aerosol spray can. The intruder then turned and ran, with Mr. Bodden in pursuit, and fired another shot. When he next saw Mr. Bodden, Jones said, Mr. Bodden was holding his left chest.”

Neyland’s statement to the investigating officers supported Jones’ account.

“Mr. Neyland said he first notice the intruder while he was sweeping in front of the store,” the Offense Report stated, “and the intruder parked his car in the east portion of the parking lot. He said he heard Mr. Bodden whistle, and he looked up to see him talking with the intruder. He also saw Mr. Sampite and thought that Mr. Bodden was whistling to Mr. Sampite. He said he then heard two shots and looked up to see the intruder waving a revolver toward Mr. Jones, and pointing his left hand at the bread rack.”

Neyland was mistaken about two shots being fired. At that point there had only been one live round fired – the one that struck Bodden in the thigh. The other had been the blank.

The Offense Report continued:

“Mr. Neyland said he heard Mr. Bodden say ‘go on, we don’t want any trouble,’ and he then heard the intruder, standing in the doorway, calling ‘come on in here boy, come here’.”

There were, I believe, four aisles on each side of the two counters inside the store. At the front of the counter area as you entered the store was the bread rack and a Christmas display stand. Standing in the doorway, Neyland was probably three feet from bread rack and Christmas display.

“When he [Neyland] asked the intruder what he wanted,” the Offense Report said, “the intruder merely repeated his command, ‘Come on in here,’ two more times. Then, he said, he saw Mr. Bodden rush up to the man with the gun, and the intruder turned and shot [hitting the aerosol snow flake can among the Christmas display]. Mr. Bodden and the gunman continued running outside the store, he said, and he started toward Mr. Bodden to assist him, when the gunman fired another shot, and Mr. Bodden held his hand to the left side of his chest and began staggering back and toward the door.”

The second live shot fired into the Christmas display was intended as a warning shot to everyone in the store. The bullet struck an artificial snow flake can causing it to explode. That explosion was louder than the gunshot.

It is more than evident that Jones and Neyland’s statements ran counter to Roy’s cool and calm killer narrative. Their statements placed Bodden outside the store when he was struck by the fatal shot. Both witnesses confirmed that Bodden rushed me and that I ran from the store.

The Kennards testimony also would have supported a “running away” defense.

The Offense Report stated that Ramona Kennard told investigators “she and her husband were driving on Greenwell Springs Road when she saw a man chasing another man in the Pak-A-Sak parking lot. She said she saw the man in front turn and shoot the man chasing him, and she said she saw the gun. She said the gunman was running east on the parking lot and got into a dark car which she could not describe further. She said she saw Mr. Bodden grab his chest on the left side, but does not remember anything else.”

The Offense Report did not contain a statement by Donald Ray Kennard. The lawmaker’s 1984 affidavit, however, said this:

“On December 5, 1965 I was driving down Greenwell Springs Road, coming from Central, with my wife and child in the car. My wife reminded me that we had no matches for our heater at home and suggested we stop to get some.

“I pulled into the Park-a-Sak grocery located on Greenwell Springs. Just as the front wheels of the car touched the curb, I heard my wife exclaim ‘oh!’ I looked up and saw two men running out of the store; the second man was chasing the first who was about 4-5 feet ahead of him. The second man was J.C. Bodden and he was holding a broom over his shoulder as he chased the first man. I remember hearing a gunshot and seeing smoke from the gunshot, but I did not see the actual shooting. I do not recall seeing J.C. Bodden fall. I do recall the first man continuing to run, around the side of the store.

“The whole incident happened extremely fast – no sooner had my car wheels touched the curb when the figures burst out of the store.”

Ramona’s 1984 affidavit described what she witnessed:

“On December 5^th, 1965, my husband, Donald Kennard, and I were driving down Greenwell Springs Road and we intended to stop at the Pak-a-Sak at 7925 Greenwell Springs Road.

“As we were pulling into the parking space, two men came running out of the store – the first man had a gun and he was being chased by the second man who, I believe, had something in his hand like a broom. They were only a few feet apart. I saw the first man fire a shot at the second man who then grabbed his chest.

“I was subpoenaed by the state for trial and went to court. However, I was told I would not be needed as a witness since I could not make a positive identification of the man with the gun.”

Roy deliberately suppressed these four eyewitnesses. He knew their testimony would have opened the door to a manslaughter defense, just as Ossie Brown had suggested. The Istrouma network was not about to let that happen.

That’s why Roy needed Sullivan’s testimony—to bolster the cool and calm killer narrative that made the crime a felony murder.

The restaurant owner’s testimony placed me just five minutes away from the scene of the crime approximately forty minutes before the crime took place, looking like a “robber trying to find a place to rob.”

In 1980, I filed a million-dollar civil lawsuit against Sullivan alleging that he had committed perjury during my trial. He hired an attorney. He did not deny the perjury allegation in his response to the lawsuit. Instead his attorney focused on getting the lawsuit dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired for bringing the action. The court agreed, dismissing the lawsuit and once again precluding me from having an opportunity to develop Roy’s misconduct in the case.

The jury returned the death penalty verdict in forty-five minutes – and they ate a quick dinner during their deliberations.

The Bodden family and Istrouma network were ecstatic. They hugged each other, smiling. I caught a glimpse of Sadie, still in mourning black, as she stared at me with full throated hatred. I will never forget that look.

The tragedy behind that stare is this: there never should have been a cause for it. Had J.C. only given up the couple hundred dollars in the register or stayed inside the store after I fled out the doorway, he could have gone home to Sadie that night and I would have went to jail.

Yes, I was the reason for her hatred but I was not its cause. That belonged exclusively to J.C. for failing to follow company policy that required cooperation with robbery attempts to protect the lives of employees and customers. It not only cost him his life but endangered the lives of Sampite, Jones and Neyland.

As I was about to be escorted out the courtroom by a sheriff’s deputy following the jury verdict, another deputy walked over and handed me a Holy Bible.

“That juror in the blue shirt,” the deputy said pointing in the juror’s direction, “asked me to give you this.”

I stared at the juror a few moments, noticing that some of the other jurors had started mingling with the Istrouma network.

“Give it back to him,” I told the deputy as I refused to accept the bible. “Tell him he needs it more than I do.”

I was led out of the courtroom and escorted back upstairs to the jail area. I spent my first night under the death penalty in a solitary cell. I was both angry and confused. The trial and its aftermath scorched my brain. I was hostile and bitter at the unfairness of both. I cursed both mine and J.C.’s stupidity. I did not feel remorse about his death. He made choices that December night that led to the fatal consequences that ensued. All he had to do was stay inside the store and call the police.

Some people saw J.C. as a “hero”—a law-abiding men who tried to foil a criminal’s actions. But that was not what he was paid to be. He was a paid employee of the Southland Corporation that had made it clear to him not to resist a robbery attempt. He did so anyway.

That is not a “hero.” It was, and remains, the actions of an irresponsible employee—an ex-football jock who wanted to chase down a punk hoodlum and hold him for the police. That was the dynamic that got J.C. Bodden killed.

Louisiana law in 1966 required that a defendant convicted of a mandatory death penalty crime be kept confined in the parish of conviction until his conviction and death sentence were upheld on appeal. He would then be transferred to death row to await execution. That appeal process sometimes took years to play out.

Judge Favrot visited me in jail a few days after my conviction. I was not particularly pleased to see him.

“You’re a little late for the party,” I said after we sat down.

“Look, Billy Wayne,” he replied. “I didn’t put you in this situation. You did that to yourself.”

I stared hard at him. Our different worlds collided in full flight.

“You’re right,” I said. “But I’m going to that electric chair because of what you did – you left me alone with old man English who didn’t know what he was doing.”

Favrot knew I was young but that I was not stupid.

“And that’s precisely why I’m here,” he said, hitting the table with his two fingers. “You will never see that electric chair—not as long as I am alive. I told Ralph Roy the same thing I am now about to tell you. I will blow the lid off this goddamn case if they try to put you in that electric chair – and they know I mean what I say.”

“And what are you saying?” I asked, confused.

He stood up, picking up his dark leather briefcase.

“They know what I’m saying,” he said intensely. “There are things I know about this case that would blow the lid off of it – and that’s why you will never see that electric chair. You may spend the next fifteen years in prison, but you will not sit in that electric chair. That I promise.”

I didn’t know what Favrot was talking about at the time. I just assumed over the years he was talking about Roy’s knowing use of perjured testimony and other forms of misconduct.

But it was the 15 years that struck me the most.

The average time a person served for murder in Louisiana in 1966 was roughly seven years. No one served 15 years in Louisiana—for anything.

But there it was again—“the Sinclair case.” A different standard, twice as much time would have to be served by another person similarly situated.

What was that something that would “blow the lid off” the Sinclair case, as Favrot put it?

I didn’t know then, and still do not know now..

Six months later—in November 1966 to be exact—I was transferred out of the Baton Rouge jail and taken to the Louisiana State Penitentiary where I was placed on “Death Row.”

And that is how and why the death penalty was returned in “the Sinclair case.”