The Christian-Newsom murders and trials

Even though the torture-murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom have been the biggest news in East Tennessee since they occurred in January, 2007, I have not written anything on them. This is not an oversight, but rather was deliberate on my part, as I did not want to write anything inflammatory that only would make things worse in a very bad situation.

However, now that two of the defendants have been tried and convicted, I believe that I can speak my peace about this horrible event that so much of the national media has ignored. There are many things about this case that conflict me, even to a point where I am not sure I can express everything I have been thinking about it.

First, and most important, I have been an advocate for defendants for many years. Much of my expertise and my advocacy have been directed toward the federal criminal system and “white collar crime.” However, I also have written on state cases in which poor, black defendants have been railroaded, such as Cory Maye in Mississippi.

I believe that every person should have the right to present a vigorous defense; indeed, as I have found in the federal system, all too often innocent people are so boxed in by prosecutors that they find they cannot risk a defense at all. Noted attorney Harvey Silverglate writes:

“Prosecutors are able to structure plea bargains in ways that make it nearly impossible for normal, rational, self-interest calculating people to go to trial. The pressure on innocent defendants to plead guilty and “cooperate” by testifying against others in exchange for a reduced sentence is enormous — so enormous that such cooperating witnesses often fail to tell the truth, saying instead what prosecutors want to hear.”

Second, I believe that the system only works when judges and prosecutors actually seek justice, not try to feather their nests or advance their careers, which is endemic in the federal system. However, I will say emphatically — emphatically — that this was not the case in the Christian-Newsom murder trials. Indeed, I think the people in charge did their best to ensure fair trials.

The convictions of Letalvis Cobbins and Lemaricus Davidson came after the prosecution demonstrated without any reasonable doubt whatsoever that these men were heavily involved in the execrable event. In the Davidson case, what made matters even worse was the obviously-false defense that his attorneys, David Eldridge and Douglas Trant, presented. As pointed out earlier, I strongly believe that a defendant has a right to a most vigorous defense; I do not believe, however, that a defendant has the right to make up and present an obviously-false story, and his attorneys, who were under the rules of conduct of the Tennessee State Bar, did just that, and it was reprehensible.

Keep in mind that the sum total of the defense was this: Christian and Newsom were drug addicts who went to the Chipman Street address to purchase drugs. While there, Christian voluntarily engaged in sex with Davidson and the others, but during the stay, the “drug deal went bad.” However, by then, Davidson already had left the house and had nothing to do with what happened later.

In trying to prop up their ridiculous case, the attorneys presented the following twisted syllogism in their closing arguments:

• Even if someone takes drugs, evidence of those drugs can leave the system over a 24-hour or so period;

• No drug residue was found in Channon Christian’s body;

• Therefore, Christian was a drug user.

As one who has had some training in logic, I must admit that this one got by me when I was learning the Aristotelian syllogism. Of course, the defense also was trying to play to another false argument, this time using the language of statistics. Their attorneys’ argument went as such:

• In statistics, one cannot prove a negative;

• There were no drugs found in Channon Christian’s body;

• Therefore, since the absence of drugs cannot prove she did not do drugs, she must have done drugs.

If anyone believes that to be reprehensible, I will be glad to concur. Why did the judge permit the defense to engage in this kind of conduct? I suspect that he believed that no matter what the attorneys did, Davidson was going to be convicted, and he was not going to do anything that might give his legal team a basis for a successful appeal. Unfortunately, the families of Christian and Newsom had to listen to defense attorneys claim that their children were dope fiends and utterly degenerate, but I also believe that by using this defense, the attorneys sealed Davidson’s fate after his conviction is appealed.

Readers of my work know that I have little good to say about prosecutors. I never will have a smidgen of respect for federal prosecutors, as the Department of Justice (sic) is little more than a pit of careerist and ambitious vipers who would sell their own grandmothers for a conviction.

However, I do believe that the prosecution team in the Christian-Newsom trials, and especially Takisha Fitzgerald, have done an honorable job. I listened to her speak to the jury, and I could not fault her logic nor her passion in this case. My sense is that the family members of the victims have taken to her, as she has been the voice that they could not give. I have no comment about the judge except to say that he did a good job in protecting himself from being a judge with a high-profile verdict overturned.

I cannot even place myself in the shoes of the Christians and the Newsoms. I cannot imagine the torture and agony their children went through, and for what? So Letalvis Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson and their friends could show the world they could brutalize people beyond any sense of reason or sanity.

This leads to one last point: punishment. One side of me agrees that execution is appropriate in certain cases, yet I have watched prosecutors elsewhere engage in outright lies and fraudulence just to get someone on death row. Read the works of Radley Balko about the fraudulent testimony of so-called expert witnesses in Mississippi and Louisiana and they will make one lose all confidence in the honesty and integrity of prosecutors in those states.

Thus, while I believe that while Davidson deserves the sentence the jury imposed, nonetheless I cannot be confident in any government to carry out this kind of state-sponsored killing. Because so many prosecutors have decided to play fast and loose with the truth, I simply believe that no prosecutor should have capital punishment as a legal weapon. How many times have we seen people on death row exonerated, but the prosecutor, guilty of misconduct, pays no price at all?

I believe, therefore, that because governments at all levels refuse even to place mild sanctions on prosecutors who engage in wicked misconduct, we cannot permit them to seek to kill other people because the chances of innocent people being executed is too great. No, I don’t believe Davidson is innocent, nor do I believe the prosecution engaged in misconduct. But I do believe that prosecutorial misconduct is out of hand, and because no one seems interested in dealing with it, I cannot agree that prosecutors should be able to seek execution for anyone.

—Dr. William Anderson