Darrell Robinson case again before Louisiana Supreme Court in rehearing

NEW ORLEANS — A key piece of evidence in Darrell Robinson's trial only was put into perspective in 2018, and by one of his own witnesses, the Louisiana Supreme Court was told Monday during a rehearing after the same court vacated Robinson's 2001 murder conviction and his death sentence months ago.

On May 28, 1996, four family members were found shot to death in a Poland-area home. The victims were Billy Lambert, 50; Carol Hooper, 54; Maureen Kelly, 37; and Nicholas Kelly, 10 months.

Robinson was seen driving away from the scene in Lambert's truck and later was captured in Evangeline Parish. In March 2001, a jury of St. Landry Parish residents convicted him on four counts of first-degree murder.

Two days later, he was sentenced to death. He's had at least two execution dates set and, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

A divided state Supreme Court ruled in a Jan. 26 opinion that the totality of evidence withheld from the defense was at such a level that both Robinson's conviction and sentence should be vacated.

Robinson, 55, remains in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. The Rapides Parish District Attorney's Office successfully sought a rehearing, which happened Monday afternoon.

One of the first things Assistant District Attorney Hugo Holland told the justices concerned the blood of baby Nicholas that was found on Robinson's left shoe and one of its laces. Although that information was introduced at his trial, Holland — in a brief filed weeks before the hearing — called it "a smoking gun."

In his brief, Holland stated prosecutors apparently failed to grasp the significance of the blood during the trial, and the defense either knew about it and kept quiet or also didn't realize what it meant.

He told the justices that he's been waiting for years for an explanation from the defense.

"I've yet to hear it," he said.

During a 2018 hearing in Alexandria on Robinson's application for post-conviction relief, an expert in blood stain pattern analysis testified for the defense. Holland contends it was this expert's testimony that showed Robinson was so close to the bleeding baby, who had been shot in his head, that his shoe touched the boy's blood.

Any partial footprint that Robinson might have left on the floor was covered up by the expanding blood pool, he said.

Associate Justice Scott J. Crichton asked Holland whether the two women — one a cousin of Lambert's who was to meet the family for lunch; the other who was dropping off her father to talk to Lambert — who discovered the bodies around the same time had blood on their shoes. Holland said no.

Rapides DA: 'Adamantly disagree' with vacating Darrell Robinson conviction, death sentence

'Another step forward': Appeals of man convicted in 1996 Rapides quadruple murder denied

He said both of the women did the right thing and called 911, comparing that to Robinson taking Lambert's truck and leading police on a high-speed chase. Under questioning from Chief Justice John Weimer, Holland said the blood evidence and Robinson's flight would be enough to convict him.

Holland then told the justices that Robinson's defense "really got you down a rabbit hole" regarding a red jacket found inside Lambert's house.

Not only does the state dispute that notes regarding the jacket were withheld from the defense, Holland said Monday it has nothing to do with the case at all. Stains found on the jacket's left sleeve were not from human blood, he said.

The defense had at least five of the justices believing it was human blood when it was not, Holland said.

Also discussed was one of the witnesses, Leroy Goodspeed, a man who testified Robinson confessed to the killings while they were jailed together. The defense argued Goodspeed would have said anything to get a deal that would result in his release.

Weimer remarked that a trial wasn't going to happen until Goodspeed became involved, but Holland disagreed. He replied that a trial would have happened either way.

Crichton then asked Holland whether Goodspeed was subjected to a "blistering cross examination" by Robinson's original defense attorney, Mike Small. Holland said it was not Small who conducted the cross-examination.

Robinson's post-conviction attorney, Matilde Carbia, told the justices that the state had presented nothing new to them.

She said none of the theories Holland now presents were raised at trial. Under questioning, she clarified that the baby's blood on Robinson's shoe was introduced at his trial, but Holland's conclusion was new.

Crichton mentioned Robinson's flight in Lambert's truck, the blood on his shoe, Lambert's knife found in his pocket and gunshot residue on his clothing. When Carbia disagreed with some of Crichton's assertions, he asked her if his fleeing was normal.

She said no, insisting that Robinson "typically fled from high-stress situations." She also said the residue found on the waistband of his pants was just one particle that proves nothing.

There was no testimony during his trial about the blood on his shoe, but she said that alone would not be enough to prove Robinson's guilt.

Carbia contended the state's theories are inconsistent, but Associate Justice Jay McCallum, who dissented in the January opinion, said jurors are the ones who decide whether evidence is believable. It's the state's job to present it to them, he said.

She said the state has reinvented theories through the years, which led Crichton to ask her what difference that makes. He said the defense has had shifting theories through the years, too.

A decision will be issued at a later date.

This article originally appeared on Alexandria Town Talk: Rapides DA argues for reinstatement of Robinson murder conviction