Zamora's Conviction: The Aftermath and a Look Ahead at Graham's Trial by Bryan Robinson Associate Editor, Court TV Online Chronology Video Index Zamora's confession Graham's confession Feb. 2 Update Feb. 3 Update Feb. 4 Update Feb. 5 Update Feb. 6 Update Feb. 9 Update Feb. 10 Update Feb. 11 Update Feb. 12 Update Feb. 16 Update Feb. 17 Verdict The Aftermath David Graham's Trial (Feb. 18) With the prosecution armed with her alleged confessions, Diane Zamora faced overwhelming odds in seeking an acquittal. In the wake of Zamora's conviction for Jones's murder, Zamora's former fiancee David Graham will face even greater odds when he goes on trial later this year. (As of this writing, no trial date has been set for Graham.) In his trial, prosecutors will use Graham's own typed, apparently freely-given, confession to Adrianne Jones's murder against him. Although prospective jurors for Graham's trial will be asked to disregard the events of Zamora's trial and conviction in deciding his guilt or innocence, the reality is that the Graham-Zamora case has captured tremendous national media attention. A nationwide audience heard Zamora's testimony---in which she told jurors that Graham had a fascination with guns, forced sex upon her several times by using a gun, and he controlled during their relationship. So, the question is: With the blizzard of publicity surrounding the Diane Zamora trial, can David Graham receive a fair trial? Graham and Zamora in happier days (Courtesy-Fort Worth Star Telegram) "It's going to be tough as hell," said New York defense attorney Trevor Garel. "It's not impossible. You can tell jurors to disregard what they've heard in the media about the [Graham-Zamora] case, but the reality is that it's darn near impossible for jurors to totally put aside what they may already know about the case. I mean, you have a confession and a co-defendant who has been convicted on the same charges with basically the same evidence that will be presented at Graham's trial. It seems extremely likely that Graham will also be convicted. " Garel predicts that the toughest part of the Graham trial may be selecting an impartial and fair jury. Graham's attorneys reportedly plan to file a motion to move Graham's trial out of Fort Worth because of the media attention. But some legal analysts feel that a change of venue will do little to help Graham's case. "A change of venue is almost useless in his case," said Joe Tacopina, a New York criminal defense attorney. "It is appropriate, based on the press coverage. But I feel that with the evidence that will be presented at Graham's trial, the prospects for him being acquitted are dim." Detailed case archives at "There's always an upside and downside to a change of venue in a local community," said Texas attorney Tim Evans. "Of course, Graham's attorneys would hope to move his trial where they hope the community could show Graham some mercy and fairness. But, there are some places you would want to avoid [having the trial] because the communities tend to be harsher [on defendants] than others." However, if Graham is convicted of capital murder in his trial, Garel suggested that Graham's attorneys could use all the pre-trial attention to their advantage. "If there's a conviction, Graham's attorneys could claim that the jury pool was poisoned and tampered and use that claim as one basis for an appeal," Garel said. How Zamora Lost Zamora unsuccessfully tried to commit suicide on Feb. 18, one day after her conviction. Because of the confessions and other evidence presented before Zamora's jury, a change of venue probably would have had little impact (if any) on the outcome of her case. Four different witnesses (Zamora's former best friend Kristina Mason, her former classmates at the Naval Academy, Jay Guild and Jennifer McKearney, and Grand Prairie detective Alan Patton) testified that Zamora confessed to being in a jealous rage over Graham's alleged one-time affair with Jones and ordering him to kill her 16-year-old sexual rival. "When you have four different people saying that you confessed and three of them have no law enforcement biases, that's tough for a defense attorney to deal with," said Tacopino. "And then her only explanation for the confessions was that these people 'misunderstood' her statements...to me, that was almost laughable. To me, that ended her case." In addition, Zamora's controlled demeanor, and, at times, combative exchange with prosecutor Michael Parrish during her cross-examination also may have turned the jurors against her. "She just seemed very, very composed and in control, not like someone who was easily controlled and manipulated by David Graham," said Garel. "When she broke down on the stand, she seemed to be shedding 'alligator tears.' Zamora did not generate the emotion she wanted to on the stand. She just seemed too controlled." Garel also observed the exchange in which Zamora lashed back at prosecutor Parrish's assertion that she was guilty of Jones's murder with a terse, "No, I am not, sir. That is your opinion." He said that jurors may have seen from that testimony that Zamora was not have been as meek as she had tried to portray herself. But Garel noted that Zamora had to take the stand to answer the questions about her confession. While it was not a mistake for Zamora to testify, she stumbled in her self-portrayal before jurors. "Her testimony did not seem to express any remorse whatsoever for Adrianne Jones and seemed self-centered," Garel continued. "If you believe Jay Guild's testimony, when she [Zamora] asked Mr. Guild whether or not he thought she deserved the death penalty for what she did, she [Zamora] asked him because she was concerned about what he thought about her. Zamora wasn't asking [the question] because of her remorse for Jones's murder. And what about her confession to her roommate that the victim was a 'bitch' and a 'slut' who deserved to die?" In addition, Zamora never supported her claims of abuse at the hands of David Graham. Even after the verdict, jurors and trial observers wondered, "If Diane Zamora suffered as much abuse from Graham as she claimed, why didn't she approach family or friends for help?" Zamora and her defense never answered that question during the trial, making it more difficult for jurors to sympathize with her.. A Possible Zamora Appeal...and Graham Trial Preview In a press conference following the verdict, Zamora's attorney John Linebarger indicated that he planned to appeal the conviction. Most likely, Linebarger will base part of his appeal on Judge Joe Drago III's decision not to have the jury consider, in addition to capital murder, lesser included murder charges against Zamora during deliberations. (Under Texas law, murder is the intentional killing of another and carries a punishment of five to 99 years or life in prison or from five to 10 years of probation. On the other hand, capital murder is the intentional killing of another in the course of a kidnapping or other crimes. The punishment for capital murder is either the death penalty or, in Zamora's case, life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years.) Prosecutors successfully argued during Zamora's trial that because Adrianne Jones was deceptively lured towards Graham's car by the two defendants, Graham and Zamora had committed a kidnapping. Judge Drago saw no evidence that Zamora should be charged with only murder. "In reality, I don't see that as a strong basis to overturn a conviction in this case," defense attorney Tacopino said. "The evidence in the case seemed to indicate the plan itself to kill Adrianne Jones was thought out by Graham and Zamora." In addition, prosecutors opposed giving Zamora the lesser included charges at trial, and she was arguably a less culpable co-defendant in Jones's murder because she did not fire the murder weapon. According to both her alleged confession and Graham's statement, she did not fire the fatal bullet into Jones's head; Graham did. It seems that prosecutors, armed with Graham's own voluntary confession and with similar evidence from Zamora's trial, will be even less likely to offer him lesser included charges at his trial. Linda Jones, Adrianne Jones's mother, during an interview before Zamora's trial Zamora's attorneys could also base their appeal on the judge's decision to admit Graham's confession into her trial. But the prosecution could claim that Zamora's defense---in which she challenged the truthfulness of Graham's police statement---opened the door for questions about his confession. It remains to be seen whether Zamora's alleged confession will be admitted into Graham's trial. Prosecutors may not need to use it because Graham's own statement may be sufficient. And Zamora is not likely to testify at all at Graham's trial. Her lawyers will make her invoke her Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate herself because her case will be on appeal. In addition, prosecutors reportedly said that they would challenge her credibility and truthfulness if she were to testify. With reports that Graham volunteered his confession and even typed part of it himself, it appears that, unlike Zamora, he is less likely to claim that police coerced his confession. Because of the gag order on his case, Graham's specific defense remains uncertain. But given that his confession claimed that Zamora ordered him to kill Adrianne Jones, Graham may contend that he was so blinded by his love for Zamora that he was under her spell and willing to do anything for her. He is also likely to claim that it was Zamora who manipulated and controlled him. If Graham uses this "obsessive love" defense, that may be the only (partial) common denominator outside of Adrianne Jones between his case and Zamora's. During a post-verdict press conference, Linda Jones, the victim's mother, said that if David Graham had any military honor left, he would take responsibility for his actions and plead guilty to her daughter's murder. However, Graham may not have that option because prosecutor Parrish said publicly that the plea offer to Graham was "off the table." "I'm not sure anything meaningful could come out of a plea bargain," said Texas attorney Evans. "It would really depend on what, if anything, the state offers. I'm sure [Graham] and his lawyers have talked about this and are still considering it." Prior to the post-verdict press conference, there had been no reported prior plea deals between the prosecution and Graham. But Parrish's statement about a plea for Graham implied that there were prior negotiations. It was only revealed during the course of Zamora's trial that Zamora was offered a plea bargain. However, her defense claimed that the reported state offer of probation for Zamora after 30 years in prison was not a serious offer and therefore rejected. "It's easy to criticize lawyers and the way they handle cases, but what it really comes down to what the client wants," said attorney Tacopino. "If the state did make an offer to Graham, you can bet that I would be advising him to take it. But, again, it would be up to him."