Robyn Little Davis is put in a police car after being found guilty of second-degree murder on Thursday. (Taylor Prejean / American Press).
Carol Noland Saltzman is escorted out of the courthouse after being found guilty of second-degree murder on Thursday. (Taylor Prejean / American Press).
Last Modified: Friday, May 11, 2012 5:16 PM
Jurors in the second-degree murder trial of Robyn Little Davis and Carol Noland Saltzman on Thursday found the two women guilty of second-degree murder after three hours of deliberation.
Davis and Saltzman, who were out on bond, were taken into custody following the verdict. Second-degree murder carries a mandatory penalty of life in prison without parole.
Judge David Ritchie said they will be sentenced on June 22.
Before closing arguments began Thursday, the defendants moved to have the responsive verdicts removed from the verdict sheet.
Jurors normally have the option to convict a defendant on the original charge, or any number of lesser offenses, called responsive verdicts.
Responsive verdicts for second-degree murder include manslaughter and negligent homicide.
Ritchie asked the defendants if they understand that jurors sometimes convict defendants on a lesser offense, which could carry a shorter sentence. Manslaughter carries a maximum of 40 years in prison, and negligent homicide carries a maximum of five years in prison.
Both defendants told Judge David Ritchie that they wanted the lesser offenses removed from the verdict sheet.
Prosecutor Rick Bryant said that even though the case was circumstantial, the evidence clearly showed that Davis and Saltzman are responsible for murdering Davis’ husband, Brian on June 29, 2009.
Bryant said that while the amount of evidence presented to jurors in the case was ”overwhelming”, each fact was a piece of the puzzle.
He said three factors -- Brian Davis’ extra-marital affairs, money and insurance policies -- could have been motives for murder.
Testimony revealed that Brian Davis had been seeing other women during the time he was with Robyn.
Bryant also said that Robyn Davis had been fired from her job for a few months, but continued to make large expenditures in the months leading up to Brian’s death. Financial records offered during trial showed the Davis bank accounts were overdrawn, but they continued to make large withdrawals at video poker establishments, Bryant said.
He said the nearly $645,000 in life insurance policies on Brian Davis also could have provided a motive, since Robyn was the beneficiary of each one. He said Robyn Davis only told police about two of the four policies on Brian, even though she filed a claim on one of the larger policies the day before her police interview.
"Look at these as reasons a person would want to hurt someone else," he said.
Bryant also pointed out inconsistencies in the women’s video-taped statements, portions of which he played for jurors during closings.
He said the defendants' cell phone records show that not only did they lie about their whereabouts in those statements, but they were in the vicinity of the murder scene around the time Brian was killed.
At the end of his argument, Bryant encouraged jurors to consider all the circumstantial evidence and use their common sense to reach a verdict.
"Carol Saltzman is Robyn Davis' alibi, and Robyn Davis is Carol Saltzman's alibi," Bryant said. "Two women, one plan."
Robyn Davis’ defense attorney Glen Vamvoras told jurors that the state’s case was ”lacking in substance” and was not sufficient to justify a conviction.
“No one should be casting judgment based on this investigation,” Vamvoras said.
He said crime scene investigators polluted the scene by mishandling evidence.
Brian Davis was found shot to death on July 1, 2009, on Wagon Wheel Lane. Davis' body was about 30 yards from his vehicle, which was jacked up with the spare tire next to the front tire.
Vamvoras said crime scene photographs show footprints surrounding the Davis’ car, and the scene looked like a ”track meet”.
Investigators found ”nothing that points the criminal finger at these two women” at the scene, he said.
He said no murder weapon was ever recovered, and no valuable physical evidence was collected at the scene.
Prosecutors hung their hats on the testimony of their cell site analysis expert, but such records should not be used to try to pinpoint a cell phone user’s specific location, Vamvoras said. He said FBI Special Agent William Shute’s report ”was replete with bias and distortion.”
Shute told jurors Monday that he received the basic facts of the case along with the cellphone records which he used to generate his report. He claimed that he could place Davis within one-half to five miles of the crime scene during the time investigators believe Brian was murdered.
Vamvoras pointed out that defense communications expert John Minor said historical cell site analysis is not accurate enough to place a person in a specific location.
Vamvoras also attacked lead detective, Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s deputy Brent Young, for lying in a report and failing to follow up on a Crime Stoppers call.
He said there could be many other explanations for what happened to Brian, including a robbery gone wrong. Since the case was based only on circumstantial evidence, prosecutors had to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and exclude every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Vamvoras said the state failed to meet the high burden.
Shane Hinch, counsel for Saltzman, also attacked Shute’s report claiming that he made the report accommodate the state’s theory of the case.
“He used his conclusions to justify the data, not the data to justify his conclusions,” Hinch said.
Hinch also criticized law enforcement for failing to “exhaust every avenue” in the investigation and “zeroing in” on Davis and Saltzman. He said Young should have pursued the Crime Stoppers call to at least see if the caller had any valuable information about the case.
The caller testified on Wednesday, and said he noticed a red truck parked down Wagon Wheel Lane the day before Davis was found dead. He said detectives never contacted him to follow up on the call.
Hinch said the state never showed any reason why Saltzman would have motive to kill Davis, other than being Robyn Davis’ friend.
Posted By: RoxanneC On: 1/7/2015
Title: Justice for Friends
I pray God bring justice for these 2 women... I feel there are too many people in the world today, that are quick to misjudge people they dont know. I applaud the 1 juror, that understood what her job was, as a juror, & seemed to be the only 1, that understood "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...It"s 2015, with technology today, police should have been able, to find real physical evidence against these women, IF they were guilty, along with investigating, all avenues, not lose evidence, especially, when 2 peoples lives are on the line. I hope all the other jurors can stomach their decision, We none, know where life path can take us, It could have easily been 1 of them that was being judged, by others with Not enough evidence...We all think it could'nt happen to us?? I'd wager, Robin & Sissy did'nt either. I saw 1 juror that said they showed "No Emotion" during trial??? It was 3 years after the fact, I'm sure they'd already mourned by then, and were in a fight for their life!! Did she see them, a month after being convicted, life behind bars??? They could still smile. Maybe like all of us, we dont show remourse for somethin we didnt do!!
Posted By: Esther On: 11/7/2014
Title: No enough evidence for arrest either
Even if these women could have fabricated this, they are not smart enough to leave absolutely no physical evidence. Investigators didn't even question the husband of the victims mistress. They lost or tampered with evidence and they didnt even considered all the facts. They just wanted to close the case. This should have been a mistrial . People with common sense would've offered these women a polygraph. They got no fair chance from the beginning . I know these women are completely innocent. God help them overturn their convictions so that the police dept. could do their jobs and look for whoever really did this.
Posted By: S.Janis On: 10/20/2014
Title: cell phone education
I really am glad I wasn't a Juror for this case because If I'm frustrated now
With the only hard evidence being a close cell phone ping then as a Juror
I would have screamed out questions! Like can a cell phone tower be to
Overloaded and force a ping miles n miles away? I know my cell phone
Never has consistent bars of strength.! Beyond a reasonable doubt.
It seems they should be cleared!
Posted By: Brittany On: 8/11/2014
NO EYE-WITNESS, NO DIRECT EVIDENCE, NO WEAPON= INNOCENT OR MISTRIAL! "NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE AT ALL TO PUT THEM AWAY FOR LIFE BUT THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM LIVING IN LOUISIANA, TOO MANY IGNORANT PEOPLE!!!!
Posted By: marie On: 9/19/2013
Title: Justice for all!
Guilty as charged! 48 Hours did not present all the evidence given at the trial and was very misleading. These two women plotted and killed an innocent man with children. One who was waitng on daddy to come home that night.
They should have been charged with first-degree murder!
Posted By: Linda Jungblut On: 8/20/2013
Title: miscarriage of justice
If these two women can be found guilty then none of us are safe in this country...i honestly can't believe they even brought this case to trial based on the so-called evidence they had & better yet that 11 people found them guilty...any other state and this would have been a mis-trial...i pray that their lawyers don't their case & get them freed on an appeal!#
Posted By: Claudette mitchell On: 8/20/2013
Dear Lord if these two ladies r guilty then they r where they need to b n justice was served, but Lord, if they r innocent of this crime as only u and them and the victim are the only ones that know the truth, then Lord I pray u let their attorneys find the evidence they need to get a judge to set these ladies free n return them bk to their families!! As we all know dear God, you don't want to see ur ppl hurting and I trust ur will b done!! In ur sweet son Jesus' name
Posted By: Ron barker On: 8/11/2013
Title: Guilty as charged
The circumstantial evidence in this case is overwhelming . Actions speak louder than words. These killers can deny all they want but they are greedy ,evil, and ignorant and belong in prison for life.
Posted By: Kevin Flynn On: 8/8/2013
Title: If I were god....
Let's say I were God and I was the sole witness to what happened that day. Let's even say I saw them do it.
These two women, unfortunately should have walked. The city FAILED to do any job at all and the jury clearly was either misled or filled with slanted jurors. Either way this is an atrocity. Even if you "know" they are guilty, you have to PROVE them guilty. If we do not abide by this strict IMMOVABLE code, there is no point to the justice system and it will wrongfully convict as long as shit like this can fly.
Posted By: Derek On: 7/8/2013
I believe without a doubt these two women are responsible for the killing....WITHOUT A DOUBT!!!
Posted By: Kim Burgamy On: 7/7/2013
I just watched 48 hours where this story was featured. These ladies convictions are a crock of crap! There was no hard core evidence to substantiate these convictions! The police never truly considered anybody else. They failed to follow up other leads AND they lost video evidence that could have proved their innocence. This is a shameful miscarriage of justice directed by keystone cops, a stupid judge and idiot jurors! These ladies should be freed and the above mentioned people locked up!
Posted By: Justice Done On: 7/7/2013
Robyn Davis and Sissy Saltzman are a couple of middle aged hags who thought they could get away with murder by hiding behind their personas. Glad they're rotting in prison.
Posted By: Stacey M On: 6/8/2013
Title: Cell phone data hoax
Huge miscarriage of justice. Jurors are incapable of understanding their responsibilities. Didn't even approach "beyond a reasonable doubt". That cell phone info has been proven to be a hoax, they will be released because they DIDN'T DO IT. People we have to stand up to law enforcement officials and make them PROVE these cases. Don't be a lazy juror. It may be you or your child or your best friend next time.
Posted By: Keisha On: 6/8/2013
I don't believe these women did this and the police don't care at all. The police set there sites on them and didn't want to look at anyone else. There are lots of other people that were far more likely to have done this. The lead detective lied,they used junk "science" on the cell phone towers and they also contaminated the crime scene,"lost" a video tape that could have proven who went down that road that day. That doesn't seem like police that wanted to find the truth,that sounds like police that wanted to set-up two innocent women for a quickly closed police investigation.
Posted By: R Reid On: 6/8/2013
This is a horrible injustice! Jurors say the defendants didn't show emotion. Defendants are told to not show emotion in court. Also, after three years after the crime, a loved one has bereaved, and suffered FOR three years before the trail!! it is not as shocking to them to cry and carry on as when their loved one died. They are now trying to save their own life.
This is just awful that the jury convicted these two ladies based on prosecutions evidence.
Common sense, "BEYIND A REASONABLE DOUBT people" (Jonathan A ^^^) I agree. WTF??
I am praying they are granted an appeal.
Posted By: lauraann On: 6/3/2013
Can't believe these two ladies were convicted on this evidence, jurors are so stupid
Posted By: rene arias On: 6/3/2013
Title: need more of this story
Girls had to of done it right? They're caught on lies n traded cars and the guy was found as if he was doin sexual act qhile having a flat? Girls had to of done too much. Plus no emotion?
Posted By: Terri On: 6/3/2013
Title: Friends for Life
I just read the article and watch the 48 hours episode and I still don't believe they did it.
Posted By: Rafer J On: 6/2/2013
Title: Amen brother
A lot of smoke, but they didn't prove a fire
Posted By: Jonathan A On: 4/13/2013
Title: wow wtf?
I can't say these two didn't kill Bryan but the jury didn't do their job.BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT people.