Requests by Robin Little Davis and Carol Noland Saltzman for a new trial and post-verdict acquittal were denied Wednesday.
Davis and Saltzman were convicted in May of second-degree murder in the death of Davis’ husband, Bryan Davis. His body was
found July 1, 2009, off Wagon Wheel Lane. The victim was shot four times.
The two women will be sentenced Aug. 24.
Davis’ and Saltzman’s attorneys, Glenn Vamvoras and Shane Hinch, claimed prosecutor Rick Bryant had not adequately laid out
the prosecution’s plan in his 16-page opening statement.
They called the opening statement “vague” and said the fact the prosecution must reveal theory and evidence in its opening
statement is “paramount.”
“The law requires he tip his hand,” Vamvoras said.
Fellow prosecutor Carla Sigler argued that opening statements are “not required to be an exhaustive list of all evidence.”
She said for Davis’ and Saltzman’s lawyers to say they had no idea of the prosecution’s evidence and plan is “incredulous.”
“To say they had truckloads (of evidence) is understated,” Sigler said. “They had everything.”
The Code of Criminal Conduct states, “The opening statement of the state shall explain the nature of the charge, and set forth,
in general terms, the nature of the evidence by which the state expects to prove the charge.”
Judge David Ritchie said Bryant’s opening statement was “thin,” but Bryant had met the requirements of the law.
In motioning for Saltzman’s acquittal, Hinch argued the evidence failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Saltzman was
a principal.
Bryant responded by saying the women “worked in concert together,” which he said was proved by their close relationship and
their actions on the day of the murder.
Bryant also said it took two people to commit the crime.
“The verdict in this case is appropriate,” Bryant said.
Davis’ and Saltzman’s attorneys also argued for their motions on several other grounds:
• There is doubt over the testimony of a crime scene reconstruction expert, who said the gun used to kill Bryan Davis could have belonged to the victim.
• That Davis had previously received life insurance money after her first husband died in a single-vehicle accident had no relevance to the case and should not have been allowed as evidence.
• There was insufficient DNA evidence at the scene. Bryant responded by saying the lack of DNA evidence in a car both women had access to was damning to the women.
• Video from Fred’s Lounge was lost that would have shown whether the women drove by on Big Lake Road around the time of the slaying.
• There was DNA from an “unknown male” under Bryan Davis’ fingernails.
• The accuracy of the cell phone records, a key component in the case, is questionable.
Ritchie went through each argument before denying them.