47
The questioning style of attorney Price was not quite as aggressive as Davis’s had been. He was looking out for the interests of his client, Schiess, and his questions were focused more on Barbara’s relationship with Vernon Roberts.
He began by asking Barbara if she knew Ron Kelly, a security guard for Temple-Inland, and asked if he had ever communicated with her in any manner. Then he asked if during the time period after the divorce, she had continued to have any communication with Vernon.
Barbara answered that she had communicated with her ex-husband by telephone, in writing, in person, or by e-mail.
Barbara said that she’d had frequent e-mails from Vernon, discussing all manner of topics, and said that she and Vernon were still dating at times following their divorce, even having a physical relationship beyond the time of his marriage to Darlene. She and Vernon had contacted each other by e-mail frequently during the time of that physical relationship, and had spoken often, both on cell phones and home phones.
“When would you have occasion to see Vernon?” Price asked.
“We met one time at the back gates on Mays Bridge Road, where the contractors and stuff would come in and out, and at that time we talked and stuff, and I gave him a mink coat to give to Darlene.”
“Did you and he and Darlene ever socialize together?”
“Not really,” Barbara said. “We would sometimes end up at the same place.”
“During that time period that he was married to Darlene, was she aware of the fact of your physical relationship with Vernon?”
“Not total knowledge. I don’t know how to answer that exactly.”
“Did you and Darlene ever have any confrontations about the fact that you were sleeping with Vernon while she was married to him?” Price asked.
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right,” Barbara answered.
“Was Vernon present during that confrontation?”
The Fifth Amendment right was invoked again.
“And, in fact, Vernon and Darlene had some serious issues about the fact that you and Vernon were sleeping together, is that correct?”
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right amendment,” Barbara said, overstating the privilege.
“On April 5 and 6 of 2006, you had telephone communications with Vernon, is that correct?”
“Yes, sir.”
“These telephone communications were done with a calling card, is that right? Do you know where you purchased that calling card?”
Barbara did not remember.
Price asked what Barbara and Vernon were talking about during those times, and Barbara said, “Different things on that day.”
“Different things,” Price repeated. “How many times did you call Vernon on the day of Darlene’s death?”
“I’d have to be guessing,” Barbara said, and Price told her that her best recollection would do.
“Four or five, something like that. He called me a couple of times, I’m not sure.”
“And during that time period that he called you, do you remember what time of day or night it was that Vernon called you on the day of Darlene’s death?”
Barbara said that she thought it was once in the morning, probably before nine o’clock, and once in the afternoon around the time he’d be getting off work, between four and five o’clock.
“Did you have a cell phone? Is there any reason why you used the calling card as opposed to the cell phone?” Price asked.
“Because he had asked me to,” Barbara answered.
“Okay. Was that so that Darlene wouldn’t find he was calling and there wouldn’t be a record on the phone? Was using the calling card to mask the fact that you and Vernon were communicating with each other?”
“Yes, sir,” Barbara said, “and from other employees that might be in his office at that time.”
“Did Vernon ever communicate with you by telephone after Darlene’s death?”
“I’m not certain, sir.”
“Did you ever call him after Darlene’s death?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Did you call him using the calling card, or did you call him using your cell phone, or how did you call him?”
Barbara told him she had called Vernon both ways.
“Did you discuss the fact of Darlene’s death with him? Can you tell me about that conversation?”
Barbara answered Price’s question at length.
“The first call was right after my sister called me from Texas when we found out that Darlene was dead, and I called him and he was coming back from the funeral. And then, later that night, early in the morning—midnight, one o’clock, something like that—I called him to let him know that my mother had died and he had told me that if things would have been different, he’d have been at my mother’s funeral, and then he asked me to pick up some flowers for her, and I asked him what he wanted to say on the card, and he said, ‘Just put something that you know what I’d say,’ and that was the first couple of times.”
“Now, these conversations ... Dr. Schiess was not aware of those conversations. He was not present during the time period that those conversations between you and Vernon occurred, is that correct?”
“He was nowhere around,” Barbara said.
Stallings asked for another short break; then the deposition resumed.
“You’d indicated that you had been having e-mail contact with Mr. Vernon Roberts, and we know that there was an e-mail—based on your testimony—there was e-mail communication in April 2006,” Price said. “Was there any communication in March 2006 via e-mail with Vernon?”
When Barbara answered that there had been, Price asked her approximately how often she would e-mail Vernon, and she said she would guess somewhere around eight times a month, from December 2005 through March 2006, going to Vernon’s e-mail address at his office at Temple-Inland.
“Now, the police have asserted that you had issues, and I’m not talking about the allegation of murder,” Price said, “but the police have indicated that you had issues with Vernon and Darlene to the extent that you would go onto their property and stalk them, is that correct?”
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right amendment,” Barbara said.
“And, in fact, the police have accused and have evidence of you wearing a disguise and a mask and going onto Vernon and Darlene’s property and committing acts of vandalism?”
Barbara invoked the Fifth Amendment once again.
“And you’re aware of the fact that the police told you that Darlene said that if she died, that you would be the one that did it? Now, you, in fact, told people that Bob Schiess is innocent of these allegations, isn’t that correct?”
“Assert the Fifth Amendment right amendment.”
“Will you give me the names of the people that you wrote to or communicated to verbally that fact, that your opinion was that Bob Schiess was innocent of this charge?”
Stallings quickly interrupted for another short, off-the-record consultation with Barbara.
When the deposition resumed, Price asked several questions regarding Vernon’s current wife, whom he had married six months after Darlene’s death, inquired once again about the photo of Barbara’s bruised eyes, wanted to know if Barbara and Darlene attended college together, and asked about the broken eyeglasses and Pearle Vision. All these questions drew the same response: the Fifth Amendment assertion.
Then Price jumped to other topics, which primarily got Barbara’s stock answer.
“You’ve asserted to law enforcement that you knew that there was blood in Vernon’s house after the murder. How did you know that? Did Vernon put that blood in the house? How did you know, and why did you say that you knew, there was blood in Vernon’s house?
“On the day of Darlene’s death, you’ve already told individuals that you wore a disguise on that date. Why did you wear a disguise? Describe it. Has Vernon ever worn a disguise, to your knowledge? Did you assist Vernon in putting dirty, bloody clothing in a trash can outside of Vernon’s residence? Did you dispose of any of Darlene’s property on the day of her death?”
Barbara asserted her Fifth Amendment right to everything.
Price then got into an area that Barbara was not hesitant to answer.
“Are you currently under the care of physicians at this time?” Price asked.
Barbara answered that she was under the care of Dr. Cecilia Kane and Dr. Steve Felton for bipolar depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and nerve damage in her arms and both wrists. She told Price that she had been hospitalized and treated for mental-health issues at Windwood in Rome, Georgia, on five or six different occasions, from 1999 until the present.
Price asked for a couple of minutes off the record to organize his notes, then came back for a hard-hitting finish.
“Ms. Roberts, Vernon, in fact, told you in your communications with him that he could not afford another divorce, isn’t that correct, speaking of him and Darlene?”
“Yes, sir.”
“When did he tell you that?”
“A couple of different times. One time particularly was when we had the affair in October.”
“He also told you that within several months of Darlene’s death, isn’t that correct?”
“Yes, sir. I think he said it would financially devastate him.”
“And, in fact, didn’t Vernon call and leave a recorded message for you telling you that he loved you?”
“Two or three of them.”
“Do you know where those tapes are?”
“Steve Lanier’s office.”
Price then said, “That’s all I have.”
48
Attorney Davis began his recross-examination by asking Barbara if she had any contact with Schiess after their initial arrest, all of which were answered with the Fifth Amendment assertion.
“After you were arrested, you and Robert John Schiess posted a cash bond for each of you, which was one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars each, and Robert John Schiess made arrangements for those cash bonds to be paid on yours and his behalf, correct? You and Robert John Schiess have communicated since both of you have been charged with the murder of Darlene Roberts. In fact, you resided together after you were released on bond, correct?
“At one time Robert John Schiess and his family was providing you with payments for your counsel, for your attorneys, and then following your statements to the law enforcement, to the police, implicating Robert John Schiess, he withdrew the funding for your defense counsel, didn’t he?”
Having had no answers other than the Fifth Amendment assertion, Davis moved to another area of questioning.
“The calling card that you referenced earlier in your responses to Mr. Price—where is that calling card located?”
“In my purse,” said Barbara.
“You still have it on your person here?”
“I don’t know where it is, sir.”
Barbara told Davis that the card had been in her purse the last time she saw it, but she had no idea where her purse was at that time, and she did not remember if the purse had been in her possession at the time of her arrest.
In another sudden switch of his line of questioning, Davis asked Barbara if Schiess had ever prescribed or provided medications to her. She immediately asserted her Fifth Amendment right, as she did when he asked if she was on any medications on April 6, 2006, or if she knew what the medical diagnosis for Schiess was, on or before that day.
When Davis asked Barbara what her injuries were in the wreck in Gwinnett County, she told him she broke her left arm and wrist, right foot, most of her ribs on both sides, had damage to her lungs, injured her neck, and had surgery on her neck and arm. Davis asked her if she knew what Schiess’s injuries were in the wreck. Barbara said he had a blowout fracture of his right eye socket; he had fractured his left femur and consequently had a rod in the left femur from the hip to the knee; his right ankle was totally reconstructed; he also had some lung injuries. Both of them had been hospitalized for some time, she said, and had to rehabilitate for quite a while following their release from the hospital.
Davis wanted to know if she and Schiess were both taking pain medication following the accident.
“And he was prescribing them for you?”
“No, sir.”
“Did you ever notice whether he prescribed any pain medication for himself?” Davis asked.
Barbara asserted her Fifth Amendment right.
At that point, after a long and tiring session, Davis stated that would be the end of the deposition. Stallings was asked if he wished to sign off on the deposition at that time, or read it first, and he reserved the right to read and sign the deposition when it was prepared. The session was then adjourned, and the parties returned to their respective offices and jail cell.
49
On May 29, 2008, Barbara signed the acknowledgment of a plea bargain offer from the Cherokee County district attorney offering her the following terms:
For a plea of guilty, she would be sentenced to a life sentence with a possibility of parole in ten years, with time served. Deadline for acceptance of the plea offer made by the state of Alabama expired at 5:00
P.M.
on May 30, 2008.
Much to the chagrin and frustration of her attorney, Barbara’s answer to this offer read,
I, Barbara Ann Roberts, do hereby decline the above offer of the Cherokee County District Attorney.
In a May 30 letter to the circuit clerk of Cherokee County and ADA Bob Johnston, Rodney Stallings told them he had again met with his client concerning their offer.
He told them that he appreciated all their efforts in offering a fair and reasonable settlement in the case, but
unfortunately, my client is not in a mental state to fully appreciate the significance of this plea,
and he regrettably would have to decline their offer at that time.
On June 6, 2008, Rodney Stallings filed a motion to continue, asking for Barbara’s trial, which was set for June 23, to be continued on several grounds. Foremost was his contention that he had been involved extensively with Barbara in settlement negotiations, and, he said, he had become aware that Barbara could not appreciate and understand the significance of her case, therefore causing delay, and comprehend the severity of the state’s indictment of capital murder. Stallings asked for more time to
deal with the issue at hand.
Stallings also stated that Barbara had been
hospitalized (committed) on three prior occasions for mental breakdowns generally caused by stressful situations or situations that the Defendant feels she cannot deal with.
Her treating physician had recently changed her medications dealing with her psychosis treatments, he said, and had reason to believe her prior medications were not effective in controlling her mental disorder. Her doctor was now hopeful her new medication would better control her mental disorder. The new medications were administered in early May, and both treating physicians had indicated that in order for the medication to be completely effective, the patient was usually required to have been taking them for a minimum of one month.
Stallings also pointed out that Barbara was being held in the Cherokee County Detention Center on no bond, and she was not likely to be granted bond or be released, and therefore posed no threat to the victim’s family, society, or herself.
The motion was subsequently denied, and the trial remained scheduled for the week of June 23, 2008.
On the same day the motion to continue had been filed, Stallings wrote a letter to District Attorney Mike O’Dell, Assistant District Attorney Bob Johnston, and Investigator Bo Jolly, thanking them for their time, patience, and consideration. They had made a plea bargain offer to his client, and Stallings told them that he was sorry that he could not at that time adequately prepare her to appreciate
the sincere and substantial benefit
of their offer to settle, partly due to other input and her mental state.
“I feel that it would be in her best interest to accept the offer and begin her sentence,” he said, “but that decision will be hers to make.”
On June 12, Barbara signed an acknowledgment that she had been offered another plea bargain, this one having the following terms:
For a plea of guilty, she would be sentenced to a life sentence with a possibility of parole in ten to fifteen years, being given credit with time served. The deadline for acceptance of the plea offer by the state of Alabama expired at 5:00
P.M.
on June 16.
The plea was signed,
I, Barbara Ann Roberts, do hereby decline the above offer of the Cherokee County District Attorney.