State, defense arguing at murder retrial hearing
For eight years, two mothers have endured what they called torture and frustration, one for a son, Bernard Hughes, who was killed in a 2010 robbery, and the other for her son, Unjolee Moore, who she says was wrongfully convicted in the killing.
And Monday marked the beginning of a new round of court hearings for Moore, as well as the possibility of a new trial.
“We thought it was over,” Berlinda Hughes said with her mother, Burnette Hughes, sitting by her side. “My brother can’t rest in peace. We thought he was resting in peace and everything was over. It’s frustrating.”
Moore’s attorney, Daniel Murphy, argued in Hamilton County Criminal Court that ineffective counsel resulted in a wrongful conviction in 2013 and a rejected appeal in 2016.
Judge Don Poole will submit an opinion within three weeks, he said.
After Bernard Hughes’ slaying, the two women were in court for the next four years for trials of each of the four defendants: Moore, Steven Ballou, Harold Butler and John Simpson. The women attended every hearing, they said.
“… I took off [work] last night because of my blood pressure. This stuff is really working me up,” Berlinda Hughes said through tears. “This stuff really takes a toll. He was my twin brother.”
But for Moore’s mother, Annette Thompson, Monday was the first step in another chance at freeing her son. The past eight years have been “torture on the whole family,” she said.
“I have a 13-year-old, and he was too young to remember Unjolee. My mom has died, [Moore’s] great-granddaddy has died … So he’s lost a lot. Unjolee don’t even have a child. He hasn’t had a chance to experience life.”
“He’s gonna get out,” she said after Monday’s hearing. “… I’m good. I’m still a praying momma. I got hope. Things gotta get better.”
Attorneys spent several hours battling it out over details of the case and how they were handled during trial.
Murphy grilled Moore’s trial lawyer, Garth Best, about his handling of the case and oversight of some certain details Murphy said could have offered a better defense. He said Best was inexperienced, as he’d never taken on a murder trial before Moore’s.
Murphy argued Best didn’t request cellphone tower records that could prove Moore was not at the crime scene at the time of the slaying and he didn’t call on key alibi witnesses in his defense.
He also argued that police misconduct resulted in a coercive interrogation that led to an alleged confession but was only partially recorded, something he says was done purposefully. Best filed a motion to suppress that evidence, but it was denied.
Murphy argues Moore’s appeal lawyer, Brandon Raulston, failed to attach the transcript of the suppression hearing, meaning the appeals court did not have information apart from Poole’s decision not to throw out the case. That hurt Moore’s chances at a legitimate appeal, Murphy said.
Prosecutor Cameron Williams countered Murphy’s claims, saying the defense team’s argument of cellphone records is based on “their interpretation of notes that they have no idea what they say.” The records are indeed handwritten notes, revealed in the discovery process.
“It’s a leap of faith,” Williams said. “And even if Mr. Best had questioned the detective about those, he would not have been able to get over this hurdle of this statement, this admission, essentially, of felony murder that his client had given to the police department.”
As for the police misconduct that allegedly led to the admission, Williams said the only proof is Moore’s word.
“I believe that, based upon his testimony, that he is not a credible witness,” he said.
Murphy did present a medical document detailing bruising around Moore’s left eye and a booking photo that showed swelling around his eye. However, the state presented other photos allegedly taken the same night that don’t show Moore with any injuries.
After Monday’s hearing, the victim’s mother and daughter said they still didn’t doubt Moore’s guilt.
“We’ve seen testimonies of the other people with him, and they put him there on the scene, so is he trying to say that everybody is lying on him?” Berlinda Hughes asked. “So that don’t change my heart and my mind feeling like he’s guilty. Why would everybody call on him?”
“If he didn’t think he had proper representation, he should have hired a criminal attorney,” Burnette Hughes said. “When he first got arrested, he should have got one. That way he knew he wouldn’t have had a problem.”
Burnette Hughes said she didn’t know about Monday’s hearing until she read a Times Free Press report previewing it.
“I wouldn’t have known if I wouldn’t have had the paper,” she said. “I lay the paper open and [Moore’s] picture was in the paper.”