Robyn Little Davis. (American Press Archives)
Carol Noland Saltzman. (American Press Archives)
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:13 PM
Robyn Little Davis and Carol Saltzman’s attorneys appealed the women’s murder convictions to a higher court Monday.
Davis and Saltzman were convicted in April 2012 in state district court of second-degree murder in the slaying of Davis’ husband, Brian Davis.
His body was found on Wagon Wheel Road in Big Lake. He had been shot four times: once in the chest, twice in the back and once in the head.
In their filings with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal, defense attorneys Glen Vamvoras and Shane Hinch list nine errors they believe the lower court committed.
“We truly believe that the trial was so error-plagued and unfair that the court of appeals will address those errors and overturn the conviction or remand it back for a new trial in accordance with fair procedure,” Vamvoras said.
The case was set for trial in November 2011. A jury was selected and testimony from one witness who would not be available during the trial had been recorded, but prosecutor Rick Bryant became ill.
When proceedings resumed in April 2012, the jury was released and a new jury selected.
Vamvoras and Hinch claim that the jury should have been sworn in when it was initially selected on the afternoon of Nov. 10, 2011.
They also say that when the first expert was sworn in on Nov. 9, 2011 — at which time 24 items were entered into evidence — double jeopardy should have commenced.
The law says that in a jury trial, double jeopardy begins when the jury is sworn in, but that in a bench trial, double jeopardy begins when the first witness is sworn in.
“It was done out of order here, and we’re saying because there was an adverse witness called and items entered into evidence, there was double jeopardy,” Vamvoras said.
He said that the months-long delay was prejudiced against Davis and Saltzman because it allowed the prosecution to strengthen its case.
In his appeal, he calls the case “an error-plagued travesty of justice.”
The nine issues Vamvoras and Hinch ask the appeals court to address:
1. Whether the initial jurors should have been immediately sworn in once all were selected.
2. and 3. After the months-long delay, whether the trial court should have found prejudice and quashed or dismissed the charges.
4. Whether the trial court should have granted double jeopardy because a witness had been sworn in.
5. Whether the prosecution should have revealed its theory of how the murder was carried out before closing and rebuttal arguments.
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Davis and Saltzman of murder. They were convicted on circumstantial evidence, much of which revolved around their cellphone records.
7. Whether the testimony of cellphone expert William Shute should have been allowed. Vamvoras and Hinch said Shute’s method of historical cell site analysis is not scientific.
8. Whether the testimony of crime scene reconstructionist George Schiro should have been allowed. Schiro testified that, in his opinion, Davis was shot all four times by the same gun, probably his own 9 mm handgun, which was never found.
9. Whether the women’s Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendment rights were violated because it was not a unanimous verdict.
Posted By: Robbie On: 1/8/2015
Pro bono means free stupid. If they had money problems,why would he want to buy a boat. I,'ve had my cell phone say I was in Mississippi when I was in Alabama fishing. They didn't do it. And it's awful convenient that the video that shows who was driving the car is supposedly lost. It showed something the prosecutor didn't like.
Posted By: Chris On: 11/24/2014
Title: a reasonable doubt...!
I have many...amd obviously some of the jurors did too.
What anout the red truck? Same color truck as his mistress's huband. What about the male dna under his fingernails? Why were his pants undone? My cell phone says i am often roaming in my living room.
This terrifies me. If we were all guilty of a crime..,because we were behind in mortgage payments...we would almost all be in jail. She could borrow 4,000 from mom...wow.,then why risk prison..give me a break.
They would mot tell on each other, even when facing life in prison...maybe they did not have anything tp tell.
Send tbese poor women home!
Posted By: McKenzie Kaye On: 10/20/2014
If it can happen to these middle aged homemakers, it can happen to any of us. Scary.
Posted By: Marie Santiago On: 10/8/2014
Title: This could happen to YOU
Guilt is supposed to proven, as many others have commented there is no proof. Cell tower foolishness, and why bother having 12 jurors when you only need 10 for a conviction? Where can anyone tell me is the evidence? I don't care if they are nice, evil etc... this has no relevance. The only thing that matters is the prosecution must prove beyond a shadow of doubt . To the rebuttal of the jury witness, they are not insensitive comments, you did not do your job. How could you possibly come to the conclusion of guilty with circumstantial evidence ? They may be guilty , but you did not have any solid proof except theatrics of so called experts read the post by Lauren Brennan. Is everyone in LA including the judicial system lacking good sense? Shame on you jurors.... and this could happen to you remember that,.
Posted By: Sally On: 10/6/2014
Title: Probably guilty, but no evidence
These two ladies are probably guilty. But from the evidence outlined in the case there is reasonable doubt and I would not convict them.
Posted By: Karol Davis On: 8/11/2014
Title: cell phone pings???? Really???
My cell phone regularly pings in Denver, CO or Chicago, IL!! I LIVE in Tucson, AZ!! Supposedly these were the CLOSEST AVAILABLE towers! Case closed. Send these women home!
Posted By: Di On: 8/7/2014
Title: Praying for all
I worked with Sissy many years ago, and at that time, she was a very sweet, kind person. I haven't had contact with her for years, so have no idea what kind of life she led more recently. But the sweet young lady I knew would never have committed the crime they are accused of. I have read all the links on google for this case, and watched the news reports. And I think they were convicted without evidence. This should be retried!
Posted By: So wrong On: 4/7/2014
Title: No justice
This is so typical of Louisiana. God help you if you're arrested on murder charges in Louisiana and you're innocent! You will be convicted and the jurors will deliberate 2-3 hours and that's it. Research murder trials in LA and you'll see what I mean. I live here and I know what I'm talking about. I could not have convicted these two women on that evidence. I hope they get a new trial.
People in LA have the mentality that you're guilty until proven innocent and that is just wrong.
Posted By: open eyes On: 3/18/2014
Title: More than meets the eye.
I just watch a show about the two of them women. Both have gambling problems, Brien doesn't know, they were both fired for the second time because of stealing, husband did not know and mostly he wasn't aware of the money problems because she got to the mail before he did, and covered everything up. Sissy had a free ride, and both were desperate for some more gambling money so murdering Brien for the insurance was their way out. Plus she never showed no emotion but was actually laughing while being question. I could go on and on, look for the whole story and not in part. They are guilty.
Posted By: Tbone On: 3/16/2014
Title: Too many idiots in La
Innocent? Yeah, ok. Guilty, greedy murderers. Ya' all a bunch of redneck fools who believe they didn't kill him. Shame on you.
Posted By: Lee Ann On: 3/4/2014
David Babcock said it all. Both of these women have bad histories... There is so much more that the public doesn't know. A book is coming out which will open a lot of people's eyes. Both women are evil and guilty.
Posted By: Darren On: 3/4/2014
Title: Listen Carefully
Go back and listen to the interview about the car itself. Listen carefully as to what Sissy said and Robin said and then you can render your opinnion as to the truth and the lie.
Posted By: Mike Bentley On: 1/14/2014
Title: Life Insurance
This case discourages wives from applying for life insurance because it can be used against you in a court of law...the fact that you have life insurance can be seen as motivation for murder even if you're innocent.
Posted By: ReadingnWondering On: 12/26/2013
Title: the juror's comment here says it all "prove them not guilty"
Uh... does LA law require the accused to prove beyond ALL doubt they are "not guilty"? Juror #... You are supposed to find someone guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
This statement by the (supposed) juror lets you know that the jury was not acting in good faith & lawully, rather they served to fill in the blanks for the prosecution & find the accused guilty by way of... they didn't "prove" themselves "not-guilty"
What a shim sham - shame!!
Posted By: Laura Brennan On: 12/16/2013
Title: And another thing...
It's interesting that neither of the jurors who posted here said there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Both comments almost sound ambivalent. Another thing that bothers me is the complete lack of physical evidence. Forensic science is so sophisticated, that it's virtually impossible to commit a crime do violence and not leave something behind. If these women killed this guy, how'd they get home? Where are their tire tracks? Mud on or in their car? If they killed him and then undressed him, they would have left hair or fibers. They probably would also have left shell casings at the scene. Even experienced killers forget to pick those up, and there are often fingerprints on the casings. Maybe they did it, but I see a truckload of reasonable doubt.
Posted By: Laura Brennan On: 12/16/2013
Title: Legal Errors
The jeopardy argument is the strongest for a reversal of the convictions. The first jury should have been sworn. But jeopardy definitely attached when the first witness was sworn and testified. If the defense wins this argument, as it should, that's the end of the road. Women will be free and there will not be another trial.
One reason I think they are innocent is that neither one ever flipped. When there are two guilty murder suspects, one of them always rats out the other. Nobody goes to prison for their friends. Nobody.
Posted By: sean On: 12/16/2013
These ladies didn't get justice. There is no actually proof that they committed this murder. Where is the physical evidence?!! AMD someone said a waste of taxpayers money and to keep them in, that's taxpayers money too. Duh? They couldn't have done this. And the one thing that could convicted them, the tape, is gone. Oh really?! Smh I'm praying for thses women. Justice shall prevail!!
Posted By: J Dub On: 12/16/2013
I read the transcripts from the grand jury and the trial, as well as just watched the ID show about the case.. I've been a Police Officer for 19 years and can. It believe that a state would even put these two on trial with the evidence they had much less a jury find them guilty!
Posted By: Sharese On: 12/15/2013
Title: Mrs B
I hope these ladies get a new trial because there just wasn't enough evidence. If they can be convicted on nothing then we're all in danger.
Posted By: Juror #... On: 12/6/2013
Title: Another word from the jury
I must question who the real fools are from these comments.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
? Søren Kierkegaard
If you weren't in the jury room you can not second guess the jurors. When all the evidence was looked at collectively there was only one conclusion that could be drawn. We looked at it with and without the controversial cell phone data and still came to the same conclusion. As for the videos in question they may well have proved the suspects guilty, but they would not have proved them not guilty because there are ways of getting the murder sight without passing the cameras. The only way any of you would truly understand what these jury members went through is for you to serve on a gruesome murder trial jury as we did, but I wish that on no one, not even on those who make insensitive comments like those herein. It was an honor to serve with my fellow jurors, but the images and emotions remain with us all.
Posted By: Vic On: 12/5/2013
WTH?!?!? I cannot believe 11 people could be so stupid. Obviously, this guy was at this secluded place to have a sexual encounter.. And he damn sure would not have taken his wife along. I hope these women are granted a trial with a jury made up of people with an IQ of at least 80. Another thing to consider, possibly the film from surveillance camera was lost because it showed something that went against the prosecutions easy route to end this case? Louisiana is another corrupt state like the one I'm in now.. Georgia. This is just more BS!!! Let these women go!
Posted By: Lisa Liljander On: 12/4/2013
These 2 women are so innocent its ridicous!! Any fool can see that...They deserve a new trial with decent jurors...Im praying for you 2 ladies and hope you are out soon and can sue the pants off some people that caused you this pain and mis justice...Were all pulling for you..hang in there girls!!!
Posted By: It could be you someday - Demand that the prosecution prove their case On: 10/21/2013
Title: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
These women might be guilty. Or not. The great aspect of American jurisprudence is that the prosecution is supposed to PROVE that they did it beyond a reasonable doubt. In legal terms, motive helps explain they WHY of the crime but the motive is not needed to convict. What is missing here is the HOW these two woman committed this crime. The only evidence proffered by the prosecution was the cell phone evidence. Sure, you can infer that the women may have been near the crime scene. But this is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one or the other took a gun and shot the victim. Seriously, if the prosecution has a theory of the case, that's fine. But in America, you don't have the luxury to make up a story about what might have happened, you need to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it did happen. These ladies should NEVER EVER has spoken to the police without an attorney present. And every person reading this comment take heed: If you get picked up by the police and think that simply being cooperative will keep you from being convicted in a court of law - even if you are innocent; think again. Always ask for a lawyer. If you are guilty, make the state prove it - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Posted By: Juror #... On: 9/4/2013
Title: Jury Perspective
If you didn't serve on this jury you have no right to question the competency of the jurors. We proudly gave three weeks of our lives to the dury for which we were called. I am proud to have served with all of the other jurors. They were some of the finest members of our society. We did not take our duty lightly and we had to make an extremely difficult and very emotional decision that lives with us all to this day. You have no idea of the conversations that took plaace during deliberation. There was not a dry eye in the room when the realization of what was about to happen struck us all. As for the verdict, it was unanimous when we left the jury room. When the jury was openly polled, one jury had a change of heart. But we all did what we were called to do, and made the decision we thought was just.
Posted By: Leslie Leach On: 8/20/2013
Title: HELP WANTED- JURY WITH COMMON SENSE
WOW!! Jury of peers??? I think NOT! Who did they turn down as jurors to find these 11 people?? Atleast one lady had some wisdom...good for you woman..you did not crumble under pressure from your (NON)-Peers in a small closed off room. If Mr. and Mrs. Davis were in financial distress then why was Mr. Davis shopping for a boat? How was he supposed to pay for the boat? He was known for cheating so why could he not have been meeting someone for a sexual tryst and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere be part of the roll play?? He did express his his voyeuristic fantasies about meeting in a secluded but outdoor public place to have sex with his ex-lover by email. You can not rely on cell phone towers as evidence...we know this now. PLEASE, give these inocennt ladies a fair...no dont even waste the money...just give them their liberty...and find who really murdered Mr. Davis.
Posted By: Sally Wright On: 8/20/2013
Title: The only evidence is lacking expertise
The defense should have had an RF engineer testify for them. As a prior RF design engineer that did design in southern states with lots of swampy land and bodies of water, it is completely plausible that a cell phone could ping off a distant tower if there is any swamp or bodies of flat water between the cell phone and the tower. Although there are many valid points for appeal or dismissal of charges, if this were to go back to court, an RF design engineer familiar with that type of geography would be invaluable.
Posted By: Elisha Palmer On: 8/20/2013
Title: nit enough evidence
I happen to be watching this case this morning it's crazy from what I hear motive they say how u goingto put someone in jail for life over cell phone calls n if we didn't hear everything I heardno type of evidence was found so this world coming to a end I would not want to judge someone life
Posted By: Layla On: 6/2/2013
Title: No REAL Evidence!!!
There poor women should be set free!!! The police dept./homicide team did a HORRIBLE & SLOPPY job in investigating this!! Do your job thoroughly and correctly before bringing anything to trial!! SHame on ALL those jurors who voted "guilty" when there was & still isnt any REAL evidence!! INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!! I think uneducated idiot jurors dont understand that concept!
Posted By: David Babcock On: 5/17/2013
Title: Grasping at straws
What a waste of time! There is no question these two are guilty as charged and an appeal should be denied! There is so much motive and circumstantial evidence to pin these killers. There was much more info that came out in court transcripts that most of the public didn't see. Those cell phone records are a definite smoking gun. Robyn borrowed $4000 from her mother immediately after he went missing and she told her mother it was for a death investigation. This was before Brian's body was even found! And how about the two of them saying they had been home all afternoon that day yet surveillance cameras found them at different stores that day. How about motive for 'Sissy'? She was at the Davis's home everyday eating their food at dinner and partying with them. She stood plenty to lose. The Davis's finances were about to collapse including foreclosure looming so her free ride was about to come to an end. The motives are obvious: Brian cheating, $650+ insurance policies, Robyn's cash flow from Brian was at the end of the line with all the bills piling up, and a hatred for Brian! That was clear with the zero emotion from Robyn. I think Sissy was the mastermind for this murderous plot to kill Brian. Just watch 48 hrs and their behavior. She does all the talking even for Robyn. He knew his killers. he was shot in the back and those two did it. Lured him back there thinking he was changing a tire and murdered with his own gun. They got rid of some important things. The laptop, cell phone, gps unit. Hard telling what those three things had to offer for information. Those two cold blooded killers are right where they belong!
Posted By: Too Bad On: 5/13/2013
Title: A Waste of Life and Time
This is just a waste of taxpayers money. They are where they belong. Jokes for attorneys....guess they wish they hadn't taken the case "pro-bono" now. Those attorneys will NEVER see a dime from these two....