Randy's trial attorneys hired Dr Kelly Goodness - a psychological expert - to perform an evaluation to support his case. Dr Goodness was prevented from presenting most of this report to the jury during the sentencing phase of Randy's trial, because the State argued that much of what she would be testifying to was 'hearsay.' This was despite the fact that there are thousands of pages of adoption records, Child Protective Service records, school records, and more in existence - all of which support and confirm what was presented in the report.
Very little effort was made on the part of Randy's trial attorneys, to push for this evidence to be shown to the jury. Each and every time, the judge sided with the prosecutor that these pieces of crucial evidence in Randy's favour, remain outside of the jury's awareness. This allowed the State to forcefully present their own narrative on Randy's life, to the jury, with the support of the presiding judge. The State had also scared Randy's biological mother into not testifying to the fact that Randy was severely abused as a child.
As a further example of how Randy did not receive a fair trial, we're including here a set of three 'Special Questions' a jury must address before handing out a death sentence:
- Is the Defendant a future threat to society?
- Did the Defendant wilfully and knowingly cause the death of the victim?
- Are there any mitigating factors that can be considered in saving the Defendant's life?
If the third question is answered “yes”, then the defendant automatically receives a life sentence, and cannot receive a sentence of death. The exclusion of vital evidence in Randy's case made certain he could not be given fair consideration by the jury.
The State also declined to put up their own expert to show Randy as being a future danger to society - this is almost unheard of in a capital case. We maintain the belief that any such expert could only come to one conclusion: Randy is not any kind of future threat or danger to society.
Randy was neither tried as an individual nor judged on his own actions which, in light of recently uncovered evidence of misconduct by the presiding judge in Randy's trial - Judge Vickers Cunningham - confirms that Randy never had anything like a fair trial.
Randy knows he should be punished, and has always taken responsibility for his own actions. However, justice is not served by holding him accountable for the actions of others.
We hold onto the belief that had the jury been permitted to hear all crucial evidence in Randy's favour, the outcome of his trial could have been different.