Things Heat Up in Final Days of Culbreath Murder Trial

SAN ANGELO, TX – Monday, things heated up in the Judge Ben Woodward’s court. With the final hours of the Stephano Culbreath murder trial approaching, both the Defense and the State are working hard to prove innocence and guilt; however, once more, witness testimony proves there are more holes than solid evidence in this case.

Because of the issues, Defense Attorney Jessica Skinner and her team motioned for an instructed verdict of acquittal.

Her reasoning: there is not enough evidence to convict Culbreath of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. There has been conflicting witness testimony and there is no DNA evidence to substantiate Culbreath’s guilt in this case.

When Judge Woodward asked the State to show him the evidence that proves Culbreath is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, District Attorney Allison Palmer maintained that the relationship between Culbreath and David Titus; Culbreath being in the area of Titus’ murder; Culbreath being seen later that morning with a firearm; Culbreath’s misconduct following the murder; and Culbreath dropping off his Suburban and rushing out into another vehicle are all valid justifications to continue the trial.

After her reasoning, Judge Woodward looked at the Defense and said, “Miss Skinner, I deny your motion.”

Therefore, the trial continues, but will be wrapping up in its third week.

Morning Testimony Paves Way for What’s to Come

The morning session of the trial began at 10:30 a.m. outside of the presence of the jury.

Both the State and Defense Attorneys stood before Judge Woodward and discussed the progress they made during the continuance they had
over the weekend. Palmer stated that the State would only be calling two more witnesses, including the testimony of the much-contested Charles Mitchell.

Mitchell came forward after the trial had been well underway (see our previous story here).

Skinner spoke about the problems her team faced in acquiring the records regarding Mitchell's past. Even after serving subpoenas last Friday, they were still missing the necessary information to effectively cross examine the witness.

Both parties seemed to agree that it would be possible for both parties to rest today and possibly commence closing arguments tomorrow. The court was in recess and the attorneys were asked to return with the jury at 1 p.m.

More Conflicting Testimony

However, the afternoon didn’t go quite as planned, and although the State rested, Skinner brought in two additional witnesses after Judge Woodward denied her motion for an instructed verdict of acquittal.

Prior to this, however, Sgt. Daniel Williams with the San Angelo Police Department took the stand after lunch recess.

During his testimony, Sgt. Williams confirmed the authenticity of three audio clips brought into evidence by the State. He explained that, while in jail, inmates are made aware that they will have no expectations of privacy. There is a disclaimer that phone calls will be recorded each time a call is made, and they are aware that visitations are recorded as well. The only privacy they get is during attorney visits.

After this explanation, a verification of the audio clips' authenticity, and the audio being admitted into evidence, the jury heard shortened versions of recordings on July 25, 2015 from 6:53 p.m. to 7:11 p.m., on Aug. 14, 2015 from 8:08 p.m. to 8:21 p.m., and on Aug. 17, 2017 from 7:31 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.

Although Skinner maintained her previous objections on these audio clips, Judge Woodward said he would note her objections and allowed Palmer to enter them into evidence and publish for the hearing of the jury.

The audio clips were muffled, and the acoustics in the courtroom made it difficult to hear the audio well, but, in each clip, Culbreath maintains his innocence.

In the first call with a family member, he says, “These fools ain’t doing their jobs…I don’t even know this kid.”

In another clip, Culbreath tells the other person, “These fools ain’t go sh#@!” He indicates that there are no eyewitnesses, and they’re just holding him with no valid evidence.

In the next clip, Culbreath is talking to his girlfriend during a phone visitation at the jail. He says, “You just don’t know. This is so freakin’ crazy.”

He then tells his girlfriend how much he loves her and thanks her for being with him through this ordeal. He also says, “Two people say they saw me in the neighborhood.”

Culbreath also notes, “They have no DNA evidence, no weapon—just two crack heads who say they saw me. I don’t even know this kid.”

When asked about people who owe him money in one of the clips, Culbreath said people usually only owe him about $25, not enough to hurt anyone over.

During a brief recess, Palmer had to look for another clip found, and after the return, the jury heard another clip on July 31, 2015, from 7:29 p.m. – 7:44 p.m. Once more, Culbreath can be heard maintaining his innocence, and he talks about losing his phone and being “dead broke.” He had $39 in his pocket when his stuff was confiscated.

After listening to the clips, Sgt. Williams was excused, and the State called witness Charles Mitchell to the stand.

As stated, the calling of this witness sparked strong objections from the Defense. Skinner said she was still waiting on records from the parole office on Mitchell, which she felt important to the case. However, Palmer and Woodward maintained that Skinner had enough time over the weekend to find out what she needed. The Defense spoke with Mitchell’s family and went to his home, so the Judge allowed for Mitchell to take the stand once more.

According to Skinner’s review, Mitchell was in jail in 2015 for possession with intent to distribute over 50 grams of cocaine-based substance. He went to a federal penitentiary initially and was re-arrested for parole violation in 2015.

After Woodward swore Mitchell in, Palmer asked him about his arrests mentioned by Skinner. At first, Mitchell said he was arrested for aiding and abetting his brother. He said he knew his brother did something bad and didn’t report it, which was possession of a controlled substance, or in this case, a cocaine-based substance.

He maintained at first that he was only charged with aiding and abetting and not the drug charge, but his story changed frequently during the testimony.

Mitchell also explained to the jury that he knew Titus from the neighborhood, and he always rode his bike around. Titus would occasionally cut his mother’s lawn and did “odd jobs.” Mitchell also said he knew Culbreath, and identified him in the courtroom.

“Mr. Mitchell, did you ever see Mr. Culbreath and Titus together?” Palmer asked.

“Yes, I have.”

However, this is where things got confusing. Mitchell said he saw the two together a couple of times, once on 20^th St. and 12^th St., at his cousin’s house.

Mitchell claimed to have seen the two together 3-5 weeks before Titus’ death, and their relationship was drug based because of “what takes place at his cousin’s house.”

At this point, Skinner asked to approach the bench once more, and Judge Woodward released the jury for further questioning of the witness outside the jury’s presence.

Once they left, Palmer proceeded with her questioning. She asked, “What did you see them do?”

“Smoking meth together,” he said.

He added that he saw Titus and Culbreath exchange “meth,” but not money. He knew it as meth because his cousin doesn’t do anything else but that.

Next, Mitchell said he saw Culbreath and Titus together at MLK Park, but said they weren’t actually together. They simply “ran the same circles.”

When asked if Culbreath could have seen Titus on his bike, Mitchell said yes.

“He rode that bike everywhere,” he said.

After Palmer passed the witness, Skinner questioned Mitchell about when he saw Culbreath and Titus together. Mitchell said it was summertime, about April or May because school was about to be out. 

Skinner then asked what he saw the two exchange, and Mitchell said a cigarette-like package.

“How far away were you?” she asked.

“Less than 20 feet,” he responded.

But then Mitchell went on to say that the exchange at that time was with someone else.

“Where was the exchange you saw with someone else?” Skinner asked.

“Once at MLK Park and 20^th St.,” Mitchell noted.

“You stated you saw Culbreath in two exchanges,” Skinner noted.

Mitchell again said these exchanged were not with Titus, but with a man named William. When asked if this was at MLK Park, Mitchell said, “No.”

Once more, Mitchell changed his story and said he saw Culbreath and Titus together on two occasions, and went back to the MLK Park and at his cousin William’s house. He said while at William’s house, he knew “what was going on but didn’t see what was going on.”

After the confusing testimony, Skinner objected to Mitchell as a witness based on character.

However, Palmer maintained that she believed there was a misunderstanding, and asked Mitchell to clarify once more what he saw.

Mitchell maintained that he saw Culbreath and Titus twice, once at MLK Park and once at William’s. He also reiterated that he saw a transfer of a cigarette pack with methamphetamine. It had a crystal-like substance. He was close enough to see it. On 12^th St., however, he did not see any exchange between Titus and Culbreath.

When asked when this was, Mitchell went back to saying it occurred a few weeks before Titus’ murder.

After this clarification, Skinner maintained her objection and said she does not know how Mitchell’s testimony relates beyond a reasonable doubt because the State has not shown that.

Palmer maintained this had to do with the relationship between Titus and Culbreath. Woodward sustained Skinner’s objection, and the jury returned.

The State and Defense re-asked the questions of Mitchell in front of the jury.

Again, Mitchell’s story changed. He said he witnessed the exchange between Culbreath and Titus at MLK Park, and Titus was on his bike. He also said he saw Culbreath the night of the murder on 28^th and Farr. Culbreath asked him for a ride to his cousin William’s house. Culbreath told Mitchell the police were questioning him about the murder, but wasn’t completely straight with him.

Skinner then asked Mitchell if he knew Sgt. Callum with SAPD and if Callum had dated his sister. Mitchell said he knew Callum but denied the relationship between his sister and the officer.

“You work for Detective Callum right,” Skinner asked. “You are his source, right?”

Mitchell said he was Callum’s source, but never said he worked for him. However, Skinner brought up a conversation Mitchell had with a law enforcement assistant where Mitchell said he worked for Callum.

“You don’t get paid, but you do work for him and give him information?” Skinner continued.

“If they ask me something, I tell them,” Mitchell admitted.

Skinner also asked if Mitchell waited until Feb. 28 to go to the D.A., right after Detective Callum testified.

“Yes,” he said.

He added that he came forward because his name kept popping up. He wanted to clear his name.

“You told Detective Callum that you gave Culbreath a ride, so didn’t that clear your name?” Skinner asked.

Skinner pushed on to Mitchell’s charges and asked about his federal and state parole. She mentioned that Mitchell was originally charged with murder, but that was downgraded.

Mitchell confirmed this was true.

“Objection!” Palmer called out at this.

“Sustained,” Woodward said.

Skinner then asked to approach the bench. After another brief conversation, Skinner continued. She revisited Mitchell’s charge, and brought up how he said he was only charged with aiding and abetting his baby brother. But then she asked, “Weren’t you arrested for possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute over 50 grams of cocaine base?”

“True,” Mitchell confirmed.

“Objection!” Palmer called out once more.

However, Skinner moved on. She asked Mitchell if he and Detective Callum hung out at the bars. At first, Mitchell said only those with restaurants, but then changed that as well, and admitted to bars in general.

Palmer objected to the relevance, but was overruled.

Skinner pointed out that this behavior isn’t allowed with supervised release.

At this, Palmer objected again and said this was improper impeachment, but Woodward overruled her objection again.

Mitchell confirmed that he hangs out at the bars with Detective Callum despite being on parole and not being allowed to. After this confirmation, Skinner passed the witness.

Mitchell was released and allowed to leave.

After Mitchell’s testimony, the State rested at 2:57 p.m., and Skinner asked to approach the bench. After the discussion, Judge Woodward said, “Ladies and gentleman, you have heard the State’s case. The State has rested. However, I must hear issues outside of the jury’s presence.”

He gave a 15-minute break, and this is when Skinner motioned for the verdict of acquittal and was denied.

Although the State rested, Skinner told the court she had two witnesses she wanted to call to the stand.

Final Defense Testimony Gets Testy

Palmer did not appear pleased at the Defense bringing in two more expert witnesses, but Woodward allowed for their testimony despite her objections.

Skinner called James Koca, a defense expert witness in the field of Active Investigation and Reconstruction, to discuss scientific principles on how accidents occur.

After explaining his 40 years of training and experience, and outside of the jury, Koca said that, based on Physics and the Laws of Motion, and what he has experience in the 1,000 cases he has worked, there is a lack of evidence that proves the Suburban hit Titus’ bike the way SAPD detectives claim. He maintained this in the jury’s presence as well.

Palmer attempted to discredit Koca, however, by indicating his testing of theories occurred in the 1990s, and because he could not give exact scientific explanations beyond Physics and Laws of Motion. She also mentioned that his testing on dummies years ago wasn’t the same as what would take place with a 24-year-old agile man, which she mentioned repeatedly during Koca’s testimony.

However, previous experts mentioned the night Titus died he was on drugs to the point of euphoria or agitation.

Koca explained that when the bicycle hit the Suburban, there should have been clean marks, but there wasn’t. There was also no contact with the windshield, which would have happened if impact was hard enough.

Also, there were no scratches or scrape marks, which would have occurred when the bike skid.

When asked repeatedly what scientific techniques proved his theories, Koca said his training and experience, and the Laws of Motion.

“There is a lack of evidence that should be there,” he maintained.

He also said if the back of the tire had been hit as indicated, it would have started to fold, or taco.

“When it gets hit, there should be deformation,” he said.

Palmer asked Koca if anyone reviewed his opinions, and he said, “No, ma’am.”

Palmer objected to Koca based on the fact this his testimony was opinion, and did not take into account all the variables of the case.

“I don’t believe this expert has the expertise in the bicycle collision aspect,” she said. “His testimony would create confusion and mislead the jurors.”

Skinner disagreed, however. She said Koca’s been an expert for over 40 years, and things “can’t always fit into a scientific field or guidelines.”

Based on his testimony being general and the jury knowing the difference of what was found and opinion, Judge Woodward allowed for Koca to testify in front of the jury.

When the jury returned, Koca continued and said he disagreed that the Suburban struck the back tire of the bicycle because of the lack of evidence. He added that when a vehicle collides with a bicycle, the rider will go onto the hood, and there was no clinging of the hood. The rider will also fall off the hood.

Additionally, when the bike fell down, there were no scratches or scrapes leading to the bike. He said when a bike gets hit, it will fall left or right, and the metal parts will start scratching and scraping to reduce the speed until it gets to 0. Also, Det. Cannady said the bike traveled 20-25 feet, but, if that was the case, there would have been scratches and scrapes.

As for the tire marks at the scene, Koca said he doesn’t believe they are related because the tires appear to belong to a Jeep rather than a Suburban. He also reiterated that the tire would have started folding if it got hit. The spokes and the rim would fold one way or another.

Koca also maintained the tire damage had to do with tire rot rather than damage from a vehicle. He pulled the actual tire from a box, and showed what he deemed rot to the jury.

Koca added that if Titus had been hit the way indicated in the report, the rider would have gone back, and his upper torso would slide on the hood. Also, if the bike had been hit in the area indicated, it would have ended up on the left side instead of the right as in this case.

Koca also said there were water spots over the damaged area of the Suburban, which indicates an older paint transfer rather than a new one, as indicated by SAPD detectives.

Overall, based on what Koca’s seen, there’s no point of impact between Culbreath’s Suburban and Titus’ bike.

During her questioning in front of the jury, Palmer went back to the variables in the case. She mentioned again that the dummies Koca did his experiments on were not the same as a 24-year-old agile man. However, Koca pointed out that his opinions weren’t just based on those experiments, but also on his experience in the field of over 40 years and 1,000 cases.

He maintained his opinions despite Palmer’s attempts to call them into question.

After Koca finished his testimony, Judge Woodward decided to push forward to question the second witness out of jury hearing, and let the jury go home. Court will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. this morning.

After they left, Larry Renner, a forensic analyst retired from the State of New Mexico, and who works part-time on violent cases, began his testimony. Renner has been in the court observing the proceedings. Tuesday morning, his questioning will continue in front of the jury, and he will explain the issues with the evidence in this case.