Legal News
nav buttons


Texas v. David Graham

"The Cadet Murder Trial"

Special investigator tells of "role-playing" during Graham interrogation

Texas v. David Graham
Background
Diane Zamora's Trial
Graham Motions Overview
Discuss the case
Clara Tuma Chat Transcript
Live Video
Video Index
April 20 (Pretrial)
April 21 (Pretrial)
April 22 (Pretrial)
April 23 (Pretrial)
April 24 (Pretrial)
Zamora's Confession
Graham's Confession
Chronology
July 15 (Openings)
July 16
July 17
July 20
July 21
July 22
July 23 (Closings)
July 24 (The Verdict)

NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS, July 21 (Court TV) -- David Graham's written confession was read in court today as an Air Force special investigator told jurors that the former Air Force cadet made detectives guess what kind of weapon was used to injure Adrianne Jones shortly before her death. However, the investigator also admitted that investigators played a "role-playing" game that led to Graham's written confession.

According to Roy Stalvey, a Air Force detective who searched Graham's room and witnessed his interrogation, Graham played a guessing game with investigators and asked them to guess what kind of weapon was used to strike Jones the night of her death.

"He would say, 'No, that's not it.' He would chuckle when we made an incorrect guess," Stalvey testified. "He said, 'You're never going to guess it. It's really dumb.'"

Graham eventually told Stalvey and the Air Force investigators that Jones was struck with a dumbbell weight. Stalvey said that Graham denied repeated offers to talk to an attorney and that Graham was read (and understood) his Miranda Rights. Graham, Stalvey testified, said that he did not like dealing with Grand Prairie investigators and felt more comfortable with Air Force detectives. During direct examination by prosecutor Mike Parrish, Stalvey portrayed the atmosphere in which Graham was questioned as non-coercive, where Graham was allowed several breaks over a 12-hour period.

Stalvey said that Graham was very concerned about the welfare of Diane Zamora and that he wanted to contact her. At one point, Graham wanted to call "someone named Kristina" (presumably previous witness Kristina Mason) in Texas to ask her to call Zamora and tell her to cooperate with investigators.

By around 10 pm, Grand Prairie Detective Dennis Meyer was concerned that Graham was not cooperating with authorities and wanted a written statement from Graham. (Around that time, Graham apparently indicated to Air Force investigator Keith Kyle that he wanted to make an admission. Out of all the investigators, Kyle spent the most time Graham during his questioning.) Stalvey testified that Meyer and Kyle participated in a "role-playing" activity around Graham. Meyer, talking in a loud voice, appeared to be upset with Kyle, and the two staged a shouting match with each other. Meyer, Stalvey said, told Graham that he was not cooperating, and that if he did not cooperate, he would tell the district attorney to seek "the max" (which in Texas is the death penalty) against Graham for capital murder. According to Stalvey, the two detectives had arranged this ruse, and to his knowledge, Graham did not know they were role playing. Stalvey, however, claimed he did not actually hear Meyer and Kyle plan "the good cop, bad cop" game.

Detailed case archives at
star-telegraph.com
Stalvey said under direct examination that Graham did not react to the staged shouting match. He only asked Meyer what options he had for a lesser punishment. Meyer explained to him that punishment for his crime ranged from the death penalty to probation. According to Stalvey, Graham wanted a promise in writing that he would not receive the death penalty for capital murder. However, Meyer allegedly told Graham that he could not make those kind of promises because that could suggest that he coerced the statement. But Meyer told Graham that he could tell the district attorney about his cooperation, and this might contribute to a lighter sentence.

Despite Meyer's loud tone and his mention of the death penalty, Stalvey never conceded on the stand that the detective threatened Graham. Stalvey said that Meyer mentioned the maximum penalty to Graham only as an option, not as a threat. But defense attorney Dan Cogdell may have scored points with the jury when he repeated what Meyer said to Graham in a similarly loud voice in court. Even after the demonstration, Stalvey refused to say that Meyer had threatened Graham with the death penalty unless he gave police a written confession.

Stalvey also said that he asked Graham why he had originally withheld information about the weight. Graham apparently told the witness that the dumbbell was at his father's house and was afraid the police would swarm the residence. (Graham said his father had a heart condition and did not want him to be startled.). Graham also said that the weight would be hard for investigators to find and that he would be willing to help them uncover the dumbbell.

According to Meyer, Graham left out two pieces of information in the first draft of his written confession: the location of the dumbbell and the fact that clothes covered in Adrianne Jones' blood had been thrown in a dumpster. Graham later added the information to his final statement. However, Graham did not know the whereabouts of the 9 mm Makarov pistol used to kill Jones.

Stalvey said that Graham initially did not want to make a statement until he first knew that Zamora was okay or until after her arrest. He said that the possibility of a promise to talk with Zamora was "brought up" in exchange for his statement. On re-direct examination by the prosecution, Stalvey testified that Graham appeared to choose his words carefully and was taking his time when typing the final draft of his confession. That may explain why he took 1 hour and 45 minutes to type a four-page confession.

top of page

HOMEPAGE | FAMOUS CASES | TRIAL TRACKING | LEGAL DOCUMENTS | PROGRAM GUIDE | CTV STORE | GAMES/CONTEST | LEGAL TERMS | SEARCH | INDEX | HOW TO GET CTV | COMMENTS


Copyright© 1999 by the Courtroom Television Network LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced in any form without permission of Court TV. Nothing in this site is intended to constitute legal advice. COURT TV is a registered trademark and COURT TV ONLINE is a service mark of the Courtroom Television Network.