The already delayed trial for suspects Lora Amburgey and James Parsons — both accused of invading Slusher’s home in Fourmile, robbing, gagging, and then throwing him in the Cumberland river — was scheduled for April 6 in Bell County Circuit Court. But at a pretrial conference held Friday morning, Special Judge James Bowling granted a request from the defense for it to be moved yet again.
There was an audible gasp in the courtroom from the Slusher family when Amburgey’s attorney Cotha Hudson told the judge she needed six more months to get her case in order. Parson’s attorney, Barbara Carnes, said she needed three more months.
“I hate to rush this,” said Hudson. “I don’t want to try this case again. I want to do it one time. And I want to do it correctly.”
Judge Bowling addressed Hudson and was clearly not pleased about the need for another delay.
“In a case like this, of course, I’m not in a strong position to deny such requests,” said Bowling. “But you know, on the other hand, what have you guys been doing for the last year?”
Hudson stated that their workload was too heavy to get everything done in time.
“I’m not unsympathetic to your burden,” said Bowling. “But there are some cases that take priority, and this is one of them.”
Commonwealth’s Attorney Karen Greene Blondell also commented on the motion for continuance during the proceedings.
“We have done everything we know to do to keep this on track,” said Commonwealth’s Attorney Karen Greene Blondell. “Obviously, we want this case tried as quickly as possible, as I’m sure everybody does. Formally, I would object to continuance.”
Blondell continued: “However, because these are death penalty cases... I want everything to be done right.”
Carnes stated in her motion for continuance that she needed more time to “obtain” and “transcribe audible tapes”; allow a new mitigation specialist to interview witnesses; get independent testing for crime lab items and get test results; and conduct a psychological evaluation of Parsons for mental competency at trial.
Hudson stated in her motion that “due to the complexities of the history of this defendant (Amburgey), and other difficulties in the preparation of her defense, it has become clear that counsel will not be ready on April 6, 2010.”
When questioned by Judge Bowling, Carnes said she had the tapes for “quite a while,” but was not able to transcribe them in time.
Carnes also commented on Parson’s mental state.
“I personally don’t think there will be any issue with competence,” said Carnes.
The new trial date is August 10. A pretrial conference is slated for May 7. Judge Bowling ask that all motions be filed before April 30.
Stephen Woodward is a Staff Writer for the Daily News. He may be contacted at swoodward@middlesborodailynews.com.
Neither BellBlogger nor I said it was the newspaper's job to soothe the family (or anything even resembling that). Please stop creating thoughts/text from thin air, especially when the words are directly in front of you. I said you seem insensitive because your original comment was callous, pompous and disrespectful to the friends and family of Paul. BellBlogger attempted to point out to you--twice--"The story states that a year has passed and justice has yet to be served. That is an accurate statement and not prejudicial in any way." You have yet to respond with anything that has shown either of us to be wrong. (You didn't even answer my question as to how you'd feel if you read your original response as a family or friend of Paul's. Perhaps you have a hard time identifying what it feels like to care about someone.) You've merely babbled... O.J., 9/11, legal jargon, another news story the MDN previously printed. Oh, and name-calling. In those regards, some might say you've acted like a dumb jerk. Yes, some might say that. I can't speak for BellBlogger, but I have no idea who "Rick Garr" is, nor do I care. This leads me to think you, in turn, don't and wouldn't know me. Identifying myself to you would have no impact on this discussion. Also, you seem like an angry person whom I would want knowing nothing about me. Best of luck to you, though.
The lead paragraph of this story says that it's been a year since the murder and that no one has been tried for it...Where is the prejudice in that statement? In the next paragraph it names the ACCUSED and passes no judgement.
What are you reading?