44
On August 15, 2007, at 9:00
A.M.
, the parties in the civil suit and their attorneys, along with a court reporter and videographer, gathered at the Cherokee County Jail to take Barbara’s deposition.
Barbara was first questioned by Vernon’s attorney, Andy Davis. He began by confirming Barbara’s correct name, date of birth, Social Security number, current address at the Cherokee County Jail, previous addresses in Conyers and Rome, Georgia, her educational background, and her employment history.
He then moved on to ask Barbara where she had been born, what her maiden name was, and whether she had any relatives in the northwest Georgia area. He asked if she had any children, and if she had ever been involved in any lawsuits other than a divorce. Barbara gave information on how long she and Vernon had been married, who their divorce attorneys were, and whether or not she had ever been arrested for anything previously.
The only prior arrest Barbara had to report was for the obstruction of officer charge, which stemmed from the bizarre confrontation she and Schiess had with the GSP officer on November 10, 2005, in Cartersville, Georgia. She could not remember whether the year had been 2006 or 2005; attorney Rodney Stallings told her, “Just answer the best you can. If you don’t know—”
“I don’t remember, sir,” Barbara told Davis.
“And was anyone else arrested with you at that time?”
Barbara told Davis that Schiess had been arrested along with her, and she said that the charges, as far as she knew, were for a DUI and an open bottle of liquor, and were still pending.
Davis asked Barbara if she had married Vernon on August 31, 1984, in Port Arthur, Texas, and if they had been married for seventeen years without having any children. That was correct, she confirmed. Then Davis asked if she had lived with Schiess, which she also confirmed.
Then Davis moved on to the subject of Darlene Roberts, asking if she had known Darlene while Darlene was working at Temple-Inland, prior to Darlene’s marriage to Vernon. Barbara told him that she had known Darlene since 2001, meeting her following the divorce when “somehow, one way or another, we both ended up at Vernon’s house at the same time. I don’t remember exactly what the deal was.”
When Davis asked Barbara if she had ever written Darlene any letters or e-mails, Stallings interrupted, asking if he could have a moment off the record with his client.
When the questioning resumed, Davis asked again about the letters or e-mails, and Barbara responded, “Take the Fifth.”
“You’re asserting your privilege, Fifth Amendment privilege, is that correct?” Davis asked.
“Just to clarify the record,” said Stallings, “she’s asserting her privilege under the Fifth Amendment, believing that those are part of the investigation that’s currently ongoing.”
Barbara was willing to answer Davis when he asked if she had ever received any letters or e-mails from Darlene, which she said she had not. Then Davis moved on.
“You didn’t like Darlene Roberts, did you?”
Stallings immediately broke in.
“She’s going to assert her Fifth Amendment. Would you rather her to say that or is it okay if I say that?”
“I’d rather her say it,” Davis responded. “I think that’s appropriate.”
“I plead my Fifth, sir,” Barbara said.
“Assert,” Stallings corrected her.
“Assert my Fifth Amendment,” Barbara restated.
“You had conflicts with Darlene Roberts, didn’t you?”
“Same,” Stallings prompted.
“Assert my Fifth Amendment right,” said Barbara.
“You threatened Darlene Roberts prior to her death, didn’t you?”
“No, sir.”
“You threatened Vernon Roberts prior to the death of Darlene Roberts, didn’t you?” Davis asked.
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right,” Barbara answered.
Davis moved on to a series of questions Barbara had no problems answering, concerning when and how she had met Schiess, when they began dating and living together, how Barbara had gotten her volunteer job at Rockdale County Hospital, which of Schiess’s relatives she had met and where they lived, who Barbara’s relatives were and where they lived, when she had last visited Texas prior to her mother’s funeral, and whether Schiess had accompanied her.
Davis asked Barbara if she was on any medications that day, and she said yes. When he asked what the medications were, she said, “I’ll be honest with you. I really don’t even know. They took me off the medications I was on and put me on what they wanted me on, so I have no idea what they are.”
“You’re talking about the medical staff here? And you’re not sure what you’re taking?”
“No, sir. I’m not on anything I originally came in on.”
Davis wanted to know if Barbara was able to hear him and understand his questions, or if Barbara was having any memory lapses.
Barbara said that probably it would be the lack of her original medications, not the taking of her current ones, that would cause problems, but at that time they were not affecting her ability to respond to his questions.
Davis asked if Barbara had ever met Schiess’s ex-wife, and she said no. He asked if Schiess had ever told her about any other homes he had other than the apartment in Conyers, any office buildings he had an interest in, and if they had opened any joint bank accounts. She answered that he had set up a checking account that he deposited money in for her as she needed it. Then Davis asked if they had any brokerage accounts or investments together, and if Barbara was aware of any brokerage representatives that Schiess used during the time the two were dating.
Gregory “Greg” Price, Schiess’s attorney, interrupted the questioning then.
“I’m going to interpose an objection on behalf of Dr. Schiess,” Price said. “It appears that you’re going into his economic circumstances, and I understand that this is a punitive damagement action.” Price named some previous court decisions pertinent to the case, and continued, “It’s improper during an action to go into the economic status of the parties until after, and if, a judgment is rendered.”
“I understand your objection,” Davis said, “but I think my questions right now are relative to the circumstances of which these two individuals committed the acts on Martha Darlene Roberts and relate to the motive. I think I have the right to cross-examine and ask her what her knowledge is, but your objection is noted, and I’ll continue on.”
Stallings asked for a moment off the record with his client; then Davis began again, asking Barbara if she knew of any brokerage representatives or any brokers that Schiess dealt with while the two of them were dating.
“We never really discussed his finances or nothing,” Barbara said. “After the wreck we were in, he would help me out to, like, pay doctor bills, stuff like that and stuff, but it’s not something we’ve discussed.”
Davis asked again about the details of the wreck, which had gone on record as the worst in the state of Georgia over the Memorial Day weekend of 2004. He was primarily interested in whether or not Barbara or Schiess had made an insurance claim against the other driver, what insurance company had been involved, and whether anything had been paid to either of them as a result of the accident. Barbara told him that there had been no money to be had by a lawsuit, and that the driver of the car that had hit them had gone to jail.
45
Having exhausted the subjects of auto accidents and insurance money, Davis then switched over to the topic of membership in the South River Gun Club, asking if the couple had gone to the club, taken lessons, or practiced to improve their ability to shoot a shotgun or other firearms.
Barbara answered by asserting her Fifth Amendment right.
“Growing up in Texas, did you hunt and fish?” he asked.
Barbara told him she had fished, but she asserted her Fifth Amendment right again when Davis asked if she had done any hunting. She said that some of her siblings had hunted, but she was not able to give any details. Davis then asked if, when she went to her mother’s funeral, she had discussed with her nephew, a deputy sheriff, how law enforcement conducted fingerprint detection and analysis.
“You were concerned about fingerprints showing up on items that were found at the scene of the murder of Darlene Roberts, weren’t you?” he asked, and Barbara invoked the Fifth Amendment. This was the start of an endless stream of questions about the events of April 6, 2006, all of which would be answered by the assertion of Barbara’s Fifth Amendment rights.
“And those fingerprints you were concerned about were not only yours, but also Robert John Schiess’s, correct? On April 5, 2006, were you with Robert John Schiess at the Weathington Road residence in Rome? You and Robert John Schiess staked out the roadway to Vernon Roberts’s house in order to ambush Darlene Roberts, didn’t you? You were present with Robert John Schiess in Cherokee County, Alabama, correct? You came in contact with Darlene Roberts, didn’t you? Robert John Schiess came in contact with Darlene Roberts, didn’t he? You were in the possession of, either owning or had use of, a firearm, correct? You had a romantic relationship with Robert John Schiess, correct? Robert John Schiess had possession of or had access to a firearm, correct? You were present in a vehicle with Robert John Schiess, weren’t you? That vehicle was not owned by you, was it? It was owned by Robert John Schiess, correct?”
In each and every case, Barbara had asserted her Fifth Amendment right not to answer due to the fact that the answer related directly to the ongoing criminal case. Rodney Stallings was ready to ask for a few minutes to confer again with his client. He requested a break, and the proceedings went off the record for a few minutes while he advised Barbara on what she was and was not required to answer.
46
Greg Price, the attorney for Schiess, had objected frequently to Barbara’s being asked for information about his client that she had no personal knowledge of, such as exactly what Schiess’s financial holdings and property ownership might be, and he stated his position once again when the deposition resumed after a short recess. But when Davis began his questioning again, it amounted to another long string of inquiries, almost all of which were answered by Barbara’s statement, “Assert my Fifth Amendment right.”
“On April 6, 2006, you owned a pair of glasses, correct? Those glasses that you’re wearing today, how long have you owned those? How long have you been prescribed glasses? Did you use Pearle Vision in Conyers, for the purchase of your glasses or glasses frames? At the Pearle Vision in Conyers you obtained a pair of eyeglasses that had titanium type frames, correct? You and Dr. Schiess purchased twelve-gauge shotgun shells at Piedmont Outdoor Store, correct? When you were at the firing range, did you and Dr. Schiess use a twelve-gauge shotgun? You knew what kind of car Darlene Roberts drove, didn’t you? You and Dr. Schiess were laying in wait until Darlene Roberts came home from work, weren’t you? You saw Darlene Roberts driving her car toward her home, correct? You and Dr. Schiess stopped Darlene Roberts on the dirt road or the gravel road on the way to her home, correct?”
Attorney Davis was getting absolutely no response from his questions other than the assertion of Barbara’s Fifth Amendment rights, so he stopped using as many questions and began placing most of his remarks to her in the form of statements.
“You and Dr. Schiess were present when farmworkers came by on an ATV. You and Dr. Schiess tried to bind Darlene Roberts’s arms and placed plastic wrap over her head and around her neck. You and Dr. Schiess dragged Darlene Roberts from her car. You and your lover, Dr. Schiess, chased Darlene Roberts through the pasture after dragging her from her car, correct? You and Dr. Schiess, your lover, fired a firearm toward Darlene Roberts, fired a shotgun at Darlene Roberts more than one time. Darlene Roberts was struck by shotgun pellets from the shotgun that you and Dr. Schiess fired. Darlene Roberts was killed at the hands of you and Dr. Schiess. You suffered a black eye as a result of the events that occurred on April 6, 2006, while you were trying to commit the murder of Darlene Roberts. You still had the black eye when you attended your mother’s funeral four days later. On April 7, 2006, you called Pearle Vision in Conyers and reported that you only had the right arm and right lens of glasses and you needed to order a new pair of glasses. You gave a statement to law enforcement personnel implicating you and Dr. Schiess in the murder of Darlene Roberts. You and Dr. Schiess attempted to dispose of Darlene Roberts’s body after you had committed murder, correct? You observed Robert John Schiess fire a firearm at Darlene Roberts. You observed Robert John Schiess shoot and kill Darlene Roberts.”
The questioning kept on, with Davis issuing statements and Barbara continuing to answer with Fifth Amendment rights assertions.
“Prior to her death, Darlene Roberts never attempted to physically harm you. Prior to her death, you never witnessed Darlene Roberts threaten Robert John Schiess, or have any contact with him. Prior to her death, Darlene Roberts never threatened you. Neither you nor Robert John Schiess has an alibi regarding the death of Darlene Roberts. You were in the presence of Robert John Schiess on April 6, 2006, weren’t you? And the two of you committed the killing and the murder of Darlene Roberts on that day, didn’t you? On that day you and Robert John Schiess engaged in an attempt to kidnap Darlene Roberts, correct? On that day, or prior to that day, you stole road signs from Floyd County as part of your plot to kill Darlene Roberts. You and Robert John Schiess did use stolen road signs on April 6, 2006, in Cherokee County, Alabama. You told investigators that you were behind the truck as Darlene Roberts came driving up so she would not recognize you, correct? And you saw Dr. Schiess stop Darlene Roberts and get her out of the car, correct? And you told investigators that Dr. Schiess bound Darlene Roberts with Saran Wrap, correct? And Darlene Roberts got loose and ran, and you and Dr. Schiess chased her, correct? You told investigators Dr. Schiess actually got in the car and chased her in the car, correct?”
Greg Price had begun frequently objecting to questions that involved his client, Schiess, and Davis decided he had done enough for the time being. He stated for the record that was all he had at that time, and turned the cross-examination over to Price until his turn came to recross-examine the witness.