Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Former Attorney Testifies Dansby's Wife Hurt Case

A former attorney for Joe Louis Dansby spent Wednesday afternoon being questioned about how he handled the 1997 murder trail.

Gene Bramlett, the lead attorney for Dansby's defense for the trial, was on the stand telling why he and his former partner, James Pratt, thought Dansby's wife's, Betty, testimony damaged their case. Dansby was tried and convicted of the 1992 murders of Jeff Lewis and Malissa Clark.

He spent an hour on the stand answering questions from Dansby's current attorney, William McLean, and 8th Judicial District South Prosecuting Attorney Brent Haltom.

According to Bramlett's testimony, the alleged confession Dansby made to his wife shouldn't have been entered into evidence unless Dansby, himself, first opened the door, and this wasn't done during the trial.

In fact, he said, they were extremely careful in how they asked questions when Dansby was on the stand so this door would remain closed and his wife couldn't testify against him.

The defense team, he said, believed 8th Judicial District Circuit Judge Joe Griffin's application of the legal precedent, State v Perry, was wrong when Griffin ruled any third party communication Dansby may have made concerning the murders opened the door to the waiver and allowed the wife to testify.

The Arkansas Supreme Court, in the Perry case, held the defendant waived the marital privilege right by telling aspects of the crime committed to more than one person before telling his wife.

There was no dispute about this being done in the Perry case, Bramlett said.

In his motion, McLean contended, under rule 37, Bramlett and Pratt misread the latitude Griffin's ruling allowed the state under the Perry case, and they, then, should not have mounted an affirmative defense.

Instead, he said, the testimony by Dansby's wife regarding who owned the .22 rifle allegedly used in killing the two, and statements reportedly made to her by Dansby about the murders, shouldn't have been placed into evidence.

The two attorneys, he said, should have simply attacked the state's case and let the jury decide based on this information.

While on the stand, Bramlett said Griffin had told Betty Dansby not to testify regarding what Joe Louis had told her when she was on the stand the first time.

During the trial, she had been put on the stand before one of the state's more questionable witnesses, Jackie Wayne Cooper. He told the court Dansby had confessed the murder to him while both were being held in the Nevada County jail.

Pratt and Bramlett continuously objected to the court's allowing Dansby's wife to taking the stand a second time and testifying against him, saying the marital privilege remained intact. Griffin disagreed and she was placed on the stand again.

McLean questioned Bramlett as to whether the defense's mounting an affirmative defense when the state rested its case, Betty Dansby would have been allowed to testify.

Bramlett said it is unlikely she would have returned to the stand had the defense not mounted its attack, unless the court had allowed the state to reopen its case, which was unlikely.

Haltom followed by asking Bramlett if the two attorneys actually considered such a tactic and was told had they known the court would allow Betty Dansby to testify about confidential information between husband and wife, they would have probably rested their case.

Haltom's next question was about Dansby's maintaining his innocence from the stand. Bramlett said Dansby has claimed to be innocent from day one, with the decision to take the stand being Dansby's.

But, he said, had the defense known Betty Dansby would be allowed to take the stand again, Joe Louis Dansby would not have testified at all.

He said a copy of the trial transcript showed the defense asked Griffin to instruct Betty Dansby not to testify on matters of marital privilege if the state didn't call her.But, he continued, Griffin apparently sided with the state on the point Cooper's testimony met the requirements of the Perry decision, and the marital privilege was waived.

This, then, allowed her to testify against her husband and about his alleged confession of the murders.

Her testimony, Bramlett said, was the single most compelling aspect the state had in its case.

Other evidence the state provided, included the .22 caliber shell casings reportedly found at Dansby's home four years after the murders and the laxity in how the DNA evidence was handled.

At the '97 trial, testimony was given from law enforcement officers involved as to how this evidence was handled.

Some of the DNA evidence was reportedly mislabeled, while some of the spent casings were placed in a film cartridge holder and not taken to the Arkansas Crime Lab for more than a year.

When the hearing ended, Griffin said he would take McLean's motion for retrial under consideration and issue a ruling on the question later.

McLean told the court he is considering filing a motion on possible new evidence with the Arkansas Supreme Court.