November 23, 2007
Flawed Theories
At Hunt's first trial in 1985, District Attorney Don Tisdale let the jury know that he wasn't sure whether Hunt raped and stabbed Deborah Sykes on his own or committed the crime with another attacker.
"Was there more than one person?" he asked during his closing argument. "I can't say that there was."
Either way, Tisdale argued, Hunt was guilty of murder.
By Hunt's second trial in 1990, the prosecutors argued two different theories.
James Yeatts, the assistant prosecutor, made the case for three attackers. "...the truth of this matter is that Darryl Hunt aided and abetted Sammy Mitchell - yes, I'm not going to beat around the bush about it - possibly Johnny Gray in the killing of Deborah Sykes and the robbery of Deborah Sykes and the rape of Deborah Sykes and the sexual offense of Deborah Sykes."
In the state's final closing argument, lead prosecutor Dean Bowman pointed to Hunt as the murderer and the rapist, leaving the jury to choose its own theory.
The state argues that the DNA evidence doesn't warrant a new trial because prosecutors have always argued that there were multiple attackers. But the DNA evidence doesn't fit any of the prosecution theories raised at either of Hunt's two trials, for DNA testing has ruled out all three suspects ever identified by the state as the rapist - or at least the person who ejaculated.
Eric Saunders, the assistant prosecutor who has been handling the case for 10 years, still questions the accuracy of the DNA evidence, though he has never demonstrated any flaws in the science. "After reading the reports, there's no doubt in my mind that Sammy Mitchell and Darryl Hunt committed this crime," he said.
The police are at a loss to explain the DNA. They theorize that Sykes may have had consensual sex before she was attacked. But they have never found any evidence that she was having an affair, and the autopsy that found abrasions and semen oozing from her doesn't support the theory. Police also suggest that she may have been raped after her death, an idea dismissed by the prosecutor's office. "I wouldn't attempt to argue that to anyone with common sense," Saunders said.
The only other possibility is that someone never identified by any of the eyewitnesses is the person who raped Sykes and ejaculated.
Thomas Murphy, one of the state's lead witnesses, did report seeing a fourth person near the scene, but he didn't mention that man until 1986, almost two years after the crime. No one else has ever testified to seeing another person at the scene.
The witnesses to the attack itself - Gray and two men who lived at the Rescue Mission - said they saw one man, not two or three or four. Gray said it was Hunt straddling Sykes and Hunt who ran from the scene, zipping his pants. And the witnesses who saw Sykes before the attack always mentioned two men. Thomas Murphy identified Hunt and Johnny Gray; Kevey Coleman said the two men looked like Hunt and Sammy Mitchell. Regardless, the DNA doesn't match any of them.
Defense lawyers familiar with Hunt's case say that the latest idea of an unseen assailant is typical of how police and prosecutors revise their theories in the face of DNA evidence. Defense lawyers deride it as the theory of the unindicted co-ejaculator.
Warren Sparrow, the Forsyth district attorney who asked the state to appoint a special prosecutor for Hunt's second trial, is now a defense lawyer in Winston-Salem.
"The other side is engaging in what they normally accuse defense lawyers of, which is creating a fanciful explanation," Sparrow said. "More weight needs to be given to the science. In this case, the scientific evidence is not consistent with the theory of the case.
"It's a pretty slender reed to convict someone for life in prison."
No jury has ever heard the prosecution's latest theory. Hunt lost his shot at a third trial from the N.C. Supreme Court by one vote.
Experienced trial lawyers say it is unlikely that a prosecutor could win a conviction for Hunt with an argument that required a jury to believe that an unidentified assailant raped Sykes before or after her death.
"I wouldn't go to a jury," said Tisdale, who prosecuted Hunt in 1985 in spite of his own misgivings about the eyewitnesses. "You start ruling all the participants out and it gets to be ludicrous."
Tamara Hinson of Newton was one of the jurors who voted to convict Hunt at his second trial. The trial was so long ago that she can't say for certain whether she would vote to convict Hunt now that he has DNA evidence on his side. But she said that without question he deserves another trial, so that a jury can evaluate the complete case.
DNA, she said, should not be used only to convict someone; it also has to be considered to help exonerate.
"I guess if it is taken to a jury again they'll have everything right in front of them and I just hope they'll be fair," Hinson said.