Quantcast

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Thursday, March 28, 2024

In Fields’ pre-trial hearing, prosecutor concedes Silas not killed by shotgun; and Judge Duebbert not relevant to case

Lawsuits
General court 06

shutterstock.com

(Editor's note: This story has been updated. A previous version indicated trial for David Fields would begin July 9, when in fact it is scheduled to begin July 23).

BELLEVILLE – Police didn’t test bullets in the murder of Carl Silas, prosecutor Charles Colburn conceded a month before the trial of suspect David Fields. 

At a final pre-trial hearing before St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert Haida on June 22, Colburn also disowned witness statements that Fields killed Silas with a shotgun. 

In all, Colburn conceded 22 statements that defense lawyers Brittany Kimble and Ryan Neal asserted about the murder weapon. Investigators have never announced recovery of the weapon and pre-trial documents make no mention of its whereabouts. 

Kimble and Neal submitted statements last week in support of a successful motion to bar potential witness Kiera Mosely from testifying. 

They wrote that witnesses told police Fields always had a gun. 

“Specifically, Kiera Mosely indicated that Mr. Fields picked up a shotgun from her house the day before Mr. Silas was killed,” the motion states. 

Jamie Lott, who shared Silas’s bed on the fatal night, told police Fields had a gun she identified as the gun Silas was murdered with. Lott had also indicated she knew a lot about guns because Silas always had them around, according to the motion. 

“She was clear that Mr. Fields had a shotgun with him the day before the murder and that he killed Mr. Silas with a shotgun,” the motion states.

Lott may not testify to seeing Fields with a shotgun the day before the murder. 

The motion states that there was no definite proof that Silas was killed by the gun Fields allegedly picked up the day before Silas, and further, evidence supported that he wasn’t killed by a shotgun.

The weapon witnesses claimed Fields carried didn’t match ammunition or fragments found at the scene, and even if Fields carried a shotgun, it was not the murder weapon. The motion states that any mention of it would be irrelevant. 

“It is common knowledge that shotguns propel pellets and there were no pellets found at the crime scene nor were any pellet fragments found inside of Mr. Silas,” the motion states.  

“The state never tested the bullets or shells found at the scene nor did the state test the bullet fragment recovered from the head of Carl Silas.” 

Fields’ attorneys are expected to bring experts who will testify that bullets and shells from the scene weren’t from a shotgun, and they could show that fragments from Silas’s head in an autopsy weren’t from a shotgun. 

In one of the attorneys’ motions, they wrote that Mosley indicated that Silas sent a message asking her to release one of his firearms to an unknown male. 

Kimble and Neal wrote that she indicated the unknown male, later identified as Fields, came to her house and picked up a long gun she thought was a shotgun. 

They wrote that Mosley’s testimony was not relevant for identification purposes – the state didn’t request a hearing on the issue and witnesses had already indicated they had personal relationships with Fields. 

“They specifically indicate that they are related to him and identified Mr. Fields by his eyes and voice, not by the weapon he was carrying,” they wrote. 

In front of Haida, prosecutor Colburn didn’t dispute the point. 

Haida barred Mosley from testifying at trial starting July 23, and ruled that Lott couldn’t testify to seeing Fields with a firearm the day before. 

He will screen prospective jurors by written questionnaire. Sensitive matters will be subjects of individual sequestered voir dire. 

Law enforcement won’t sit at the prosecution table. 

Fields will appear in street clothes with minimal restraint undetectable to jurors. 

Prosecutors will refer to him as David or Mr. Fields. 

Jurors will not hear his criminal history. 

No witness shall comment on the veracity of other witnesses. 

Fields’ attorneys can mention that Silas was physically violent to Lott and her mother. 

They can question witness Kiwane Hale about being present when Silas shot at Lott and her family, and question witnesses about calling police on Silas. 

“This testimony would be relevant and provide a motive for why Ms. Lott would want the deceased killed,” Kimble and Neal wrote. 

They can also question witness Markeith Wright about Silas’s distrust of Lott and the fact he thought Lott would kill him. 

They can question witness Carl Riley about text messages he reviewed in Silas’s telephone indicating someone was trying to kill Silas. 

Prosecutors can’t mention St. Clair County Circuit Judge Ron Duebbert. 

“Judge Duebbert was not charged in the instant case nor was he a witness to the charged offense,” Kimble and Neal wrote. “Mentioning that law enforcement talked to him or checked his home for guns is thus not relevant and should not be allowed to be discussed at trial.” 

Haida allowed all the motions by agreement. 

He didn’t decide a motion from prosecutor Colburn to limit testimony of Geoffrey Loftus, a witness identification expert. 

Loftus filed a report for Fields in April, stating that based on prior interactions, witnesses would have reason to expect that the shooter was likely Mr. Fields. 

“Such expectations would have the effect of biasing witnesses to perceive the shooter as being Mr. Fields even if he wasn’t,” the Loftus report states. “Expectations are most influential when a witness’s ability to perceive is limited.” 

Loftus wrote that the murder occurred at night with no capability of perceiving colors or fine detail. 

He wrote that three witnesses who identified Fields had ample opportunity to talk with one another and they had the ability to use prior knowledge of Fields’s appearance to reconstruct memories of the shooter’s appearance. 

“A witness can be highly confident but wrong, yet not be lying,” his report states. 

He wrote that a witness might honestly report a memory that, for explainable reasons, is false in important respects.

More News