This document provides a summary of the case facts and legal proceedings in the murder trial of Ronald Williamson. Key points include: - Debra Carter was found murdered in her apartment in 1982. Ronald Williamson and Dennis Fritz were eventually arrested and convicted based primarily on eyewitness testimony and hair/fiber evidence. - Williamson received the death penalty. His appeals were denied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and U.S. District Court, finding he received effective counsel despite issues around his mental health not being investigated. - In 2004, Williamson was exonerated by DNA evidence. He had spent over 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. The real killers were never found.

1. 1
I. Case Facts & Holdings
a. Murder Synopsis
Debra Sue Carter was found dead in her apartment the morning of December 8,
1982. Her naked body was found laying face down beside her bed. A bloody washcloth
was found lodged down her throat; the name „Duke Gram‟ had been written, in catsup, on
her back. Other messages, written in either catsup or nail polish, were left throughout the
apartment. Underneath her body were an electrical cord and a Western-style belt with a
large belt buckle. Although there were several bruises, bind marks and signs of head
trauma, it would later be determined that the initial cause of death was strangulation and
that Carter was alive while she was beaten and raped.
The night before she was killed, Carter was last seen in the parking lot of the
Coachlight around 12:30 a.m. Several people leaving the bar saw Carter talking with
Glen Gore. After Carter had left, Gore got a ride home from an acquaintance, Ron West.
Gore instructed West to drop him off a few blocks north at the Oak Avenue Baptist
Church, where he claimed he would walk home from there. The church was a mile away
from Carter‟s apartment; Gore‟s residence was several blocks north of the church on the
opposite side of town. The police report states that Gore was never at Carter‟s apartment
and had no recollection of disputing with Carter prior to her leaving the Coachlight. Gore
submitted hair and fiber samples to the Ada Police, but his samples never made it to the
labs of the OSBI.
The prime suspect, Ronald Williamson, wasn‟t included in the list of suspects
until three months after the murder. Williamson testifies that he was at home with his
mother that night.The Williamson residence was a block away from Carter‟s

2. 2
apartmentand Williamson had been known to wander the streets late at night. However,
none of the witnesses at the Coachlight recall seeing Williamson there the night of the
murder. Williamson had a history of DUIs and was acquitted of two rape charges in
Tulsa. Williamson had been in and out of several mental institutions for bipolar disorder,
schizophrenia and substance abuse prior to and following the murder.
Dennis Fritz was an old friend of Williamson‟s. He was a substitute teacher at the
elementary school in town. Fritz was a fairly new resident of Ada and did not know
Carter. Dennis Fritz‟s only prior criminal charge was for growing and harvesting
marijuana. Like Williamson, no witnesses came forward to state that they saw Fritz at the
Coachlight the night before the murder.
b. Investigation
At the crime scene, police gathered hair and fibers that were found throughout the
apartment. There was one handprint on a four-inch square of sheet rock near the body;
this was gathered for analysis by the OSBI. The police gathered samples from a list of 21
potential suspects in the Ada area to be submitted for analysis. Suspects were also
brought in for questioning and witness testimonies. Detectives Dennis Smith and Gary
Rogers led the investigation. They submitted their samples on January 4, 1983.Although
there was no physical evidence suggesting more than one killer, upon seeing the brutality
of the crime scene, the detectives immediately determined that this was the work of two
people working together.
The results of the samples were delayed due to backlog in the crime lab. During
this time, Smith and Rogers continued with the investigation, searching for any potential
leads. Williamson was not considered a suspect until three months after the murder. On

3. 3
March 7, Rogers brought in Noel Deatherage for questioning; Deatherage had shared a
jail cell with Williamson, both were charged with DUI. During his time in jail,
Deatherage stated that talking about the Carter trial would upset him and end with a fight
(verbal, sometimes physical). This gave Deatherage the impression that Williamson may
have somehow been involved.
After Williamson was arrested on forgery charges, the police subjected him to a
polygraph test. The questions were all primarily surrounding the Carter murder.
Williamson denied any and all involvement and knowledge of the case. During the
interview, Williamson stated that another inmate was a witch and took him to Carter‟s
house the night of the murder and that the whole case had been haunting him. When the
police questioned Gore, he stated that he was with Carter at the Coachlight because she
had claimed that Williamson was making her uncomfortable. This statement was not
included in Gore‟s original police report. Gore also denied any involvement in Carter‟s
murder. Up until this point, the only evidence the state had against Williamson was two
inconclusive polygraph tests and the eyewitness identification from Gore.
After a huge delay, Jerry Peters, an agent for the OSBI, concluded that the bloody
handprint left on the wall was not a match to Carter, Williamson or Fritz. A non-secretor,
meaning that it couldn‟t be conclusively matched to anyone, left the semen that was
found in Carter‟s body. The hair and fibers that were found were stated to be
microscopically consistent with Fritz and Williamson. It wouldn‟t be for another four
years that Peters would change his mind and conclude that the bloody handprint belonged
to Carter. This new finding made the arrests of Fritz and Williamson possible. He did this
after District Attorney, Bill Peterson, came to question his findings.

4. 4
Upon his arrest, Williamson was brought in for one final interview. Although the
police anticipated a confession, no recording devices were used to log the interview.
During this interview, Williamson stated that he had nightmares about the Carter murder
and that he was there with the probable intention to kill her. He later ceased the
confession and asked for an attorney, which immediately halted the confession. This
interview was never signed by Williamson or presented to him upon completion.
c. Trial Proceedings
Because Pontotoc County didn‟t have a public defender, the presiding judge
would require the accused to sign a pauper‟s oath and he would then assign a local lawyer
as indigent counsel. Barney Ward was assigned to the Williamson case. Bill Peterson
would be the prosecuting attorney. Judge John Miller would be presiding over both the
Fritz and Williamson trial. At the preliminary hearing, Williamson was completely out of
control. He would make frequent outbursts proclaiming his innocence and refused to
calm himself at the request of the judge. After being escorted out of the courtroom twice,
he was brought in a third time; it was then that Williamson requested to stay in his jail
cell during the preliminary hearing.
The defense, prosecution or judge never questioned the issue of Williamson‟s
mental capacity. The health records from the many hospitals that Williamson was
checked into were readily available but never used. When Williamson was tried on an
escape charge shortly before he was arrested for the Carter murder, Judge Miller had
ruled Williamson mentally incompetent.
Ward had requested a change in venue for the trial due to the high profile nature
of the case. Judge Miller denied the motion without any explanation. The trial was to be

5. 5
held in the Ada District Courthouse. During the jury selection, Cecil Smith was one of
the candidates selected as a juror. Smith had stated that he had no relation to the
prosecution by kin. It wasn‟t until after the Fritz trial began that Greg Saunders, Fritz‟s
defense counsel, discovered Smith was a former Ada chief of police. When Saunders
brought forth the motion to declare a mistrial, Judge miller denied the motion.
Once the trial was underway, the prosecution began its argument by presenting
the same video confession from Williamson he had made upon his arrest. The
prosecution had withheld this evidence during discovery. When Ward motioned for a
mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, Judge Miller denied the motion. He
did, however, say that Ward could have a trial hearing on the matter after the Williamson
trial was over. Because there was a miniscule amount of physical evidence, the
prosecution‟s case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony. Among these witnesses were
Glen Gore, Terri Holland and Cindy McIntosh. It is worthy to note that all three had been
given lighter sentences for their own respective criminal charges following their
testimony.
After the prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, they called scientific
experts to the stand. Among the most prominent witnesses would be Melvin Hett. Hett
was the analyst of the hair and fiber samples found in Carter‟s apartment. It wasn‟t until
after Fritz‟s trial that Hett had issued a statement claiming that Gore‟s hair and fibers
were inconsistent with those found at the scene, just in time to testify at Williamson‟s
trial. When it was his turn to testify, he stated that the hairs conclusively matched
Williamson‟s. Both Williamson and Fritz and been found guilty on the charge of murder

6. 6
in the first degree. Fritz was sentenced to life in prison. Williamson was sentenced to
death.
d. OCCA Ruling
Because Williamson was sentenced to death, his case automatically appealed to
the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Judge Lumpkin would be the justice who
wrote the opinion regarding the Williamson case. After reviewing several complaints
filed by Williamson, including ineffective defense counsel, prosecutorial misconduct,
hearsay testimony and the credibility of hair and fiber evidence, Lumpkin ruled that
Williamson‟s sentenced would be affirmed.
The court states that it is the burden of the appellant to prove that there is
reasonable probability that any unprofessional errors made by the defense counsel would
have resulted in a different ruling. In order to do this, Williamson provides the following
complaints: counsel‟s failure to introduce the videotaped confession of Ricky Simmons,
counsel‟s failure to fully investigate and utilize evidence regarding his own mental
capacity, and counsel deliberately limiting his participation during the sentencing trial.
The court has a two-part test in order to determine the effectiveness of defense counsel:
the defendant must show that counsel‟s performance was deficient and that counsel‟s
performance negatively prejudiced the defense.
The record stated that counsel‟s decision to not bring the confession of Ricky
Simmons into evidence was a tactical decision, although counsel did explore the tape
upon cross-examination. The court ruled that counsel was not ineffective for not
investigating the confession as a means of legal strategy. The State had argued that
because the confession took place during a polygraph examination, the confession would

7. 7
have to be inadmissible. Upon cross-examination, Agent Rogers had concluded that they
could positively exclude Simmons as a suspect in the murder based on the results of the
hair sample analysis.
Ward had stated in an affidavit that he deliberately chose not to pursue the issue
of Williamson‟s mental health for the purposes of building a defense and for the
mitigation of punishment. This was despite the fact that counsel was aware of
Williamson‟s medications and was in possession of all of his health records.
Supplemental records given to counsel also indicate nine separate affidavits from mental
health professionals stating that they would have testified in court had they been notified
by anyone authorized to do so. The court ruled that the deliberate decision to not
investigate the mental health of the defendant was reliant on the judgment of the defense
counsel. The three reports that counsel utilized during trial indicated that Williamson
possessed a normal level of intelligence and adequate communication skills that would
allow him to stand trial. The court ruled that it is not their place to force defense counsel
to investigate the mental capacity of each of its defendants. Therefore, counsel was not
ineffective for not exploring the mental competency of Williamson; rather, the choice
was a legal tactic used during trial. The court concludes that Williamson failed to prove
that the outcome of the trial would have been significantly altered had counsel
investigated his mental health more comprehensively.
Williamson addressed a variety of pre-trial issues. The first issue was the
argument that the State denied him his rights to due process and a speedy trial. The court
ruled that the five-year time lapse between the murder and the filing of charges was not a
violation of Williamson‟s Sixth Amendment rights because Williamson had become the

8. 8
accused once the felony information was filed. The court continues its decision by
explaining that the delay was a result of the prosecution waiting until they could build an
effective case before blindly accusing someone of murder, rather than a tactical delay
made by the State. Williamson also alleges that the State denied him his right to due
process by failing to not grant him expert witnesses to testify in his defense. Williamson
relies on the opinion in Ake v. Oklahoma. The court distinguishes this opinion by stating
that Ake does not extend to include expert witnesses aside from psychiatrists. Like
proving ineffective defense counsel, proving the necessity of expert witnesses relies on
the defendant. The court ruled that Williamson failed to meet his burden because of the
undeveloped assertions contained in his motion. The court elaborates on this opinion by
stating that Williamson‟s case was not prejudiced because counsel was given the
opportunity to cross-examine experts provided by the State. Williamson‟s final point on
prosecutorial misconduct states that the confession the State used during the trial should
be inadmissible because the confession was not corroborated or consistent with the
physical evidence of the crime. The court relies on Jones v. State to conclude that once
the prosecution establishes evidence of the corpus delicti, the confession of the defendant
is considered admissible evidence. The court elaborates by explaining that corroborative
evidence need not be sufficient or independent of the defendant‟s statements.
Williamson addresses the credibility of witness testimonies used during his trial.
Terri Holland originally introduced Williamson‟s confession despite the fact that Holland
testified to hearing the confession four years prior to the trial. Williamson argues that
Holland‟s statements could not be considered corroborative evidence based on factual
errors and omissions (e.g. defendant had used Carter‟s panties to gag her, physical

9. 9
evidence shows that a green washcloth had been used as the gag). The court admits
Holland‟s statement and rules that her statement is admissible because the essential facts
of the confession were corroborated with the facts of the crime. Gore, who was one of the
State‟s key witnesses during Fritz‟s trial, was unable to testify during Williamson‟s trial,
making it impossible for defense counsel to cross-examine Gore‟s prior criminal charges.
Instead, Gore‟s preliminary testimony was read to the jury. Williamson argues that the
State should be required to explain to the jury Gore‟s exact reason for not testifying in
court. The court ruled that Williamson failed to prove that Gore‟s refusal to testify was an
act of the State; therefore, Gore‟s preliminary statement was properly admitted into
evidence.
Williamson makes the argument that the hair and fiber samples used as evidence
against him are unreliable and the validity of the evidence should have been put into
question because of the increasing studies showing that hair matching no longer met the
standards of scientific reliability. The court denies the request and states that the scientific
validity of hair matching should have been introduced upon cross-examination.
Williamson continues his claim by stating that the testimony provided by Hettwas
unreliable and prejudicial toward the State. Hett testified that the hairs found on Carter‟s
body were “microscopically consistent” with he hair samples provided by Williamson.
However, Hett did not explain that “microscopically consistent” did not equate to an
absolute identification. The source of the hairs could have come from Williamson, but
there is also likelihood that the source of the hairs was someone else. Williamson relies
on the ruling in McCarty v. State; in that case, the expert testimony provided against the
defendant was found to be improper and beyond the present state of the art forensic

10. 10
science and personal knowledge of the expert witness. In Williamson‟s case, the court
distinguishes the ruling and states that Hett‟s testimony was well within the present scope
of scientific capability, rather than a personal expression of guilt.
e. USDC Ruling
After Williamson‟s appeal was denied by the OCCA, his legal team wrote a
petition of habeas corpus and appealed to the U.S. District Court. Judge Seay and his
clerical team read over the petition and ultimately granted the writ. Seay analyzes the
same complaints that Williamson makes in his appeal to the OCCA and determines that
Williamson did not receive a fair trial.
In order to prove that the petitioner received ineffective defense counsel, the
district court follows the same two-part test that was applied by the OCCA. It is the
burden of the petitioner to show first, the counsel‟s performance had to be deficient with
reference to prevailing professional norms. Second, the petitioner must prove that the
deficient performance was prejudiced to the defense. The court first examines the issue of
Williamson‟s mental competency. Seay states that Williamson‟s medical records show
that he has been treated for mental illness since 1979. The records go on to show that
Williamson had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Borderline
Personality Disorder and Paranoid Personality Disorder. Despite all of this information,
counsel refused to pursue the issue because Williamson had been found competent to
stand trial in 1985 (for a separate criminal proceeding). The statements that counsel used
to justify not investigating Williamson‟s mental health were incomplete. Although the
OCCA determined those records were enough to prove competency, this court disagrees
with that finding. Because counsel was aware of Williamson‟s mental issues, the court

11. 11
decides that counsel‟s decision to not further investigate Williamson‟s mental health was
based on inadequate information and a misconception of the law. This decision,
therefore, falls outside of the scope of prevailing professional norms. The court also
includes two written letters from Dr. Garcia and Norma Walker. Both letters indicate that
Williamson urgently needed further psychological evaluation and treatment. This should
have been an immediate indication for counsel to seek out mental treatment for his client.
The court also notes that counsel was aware that Williamson had received Social Security
Disability benefits due to his mental illness. The court also relies on Coleman v. Brown in
determining the effectiveness of counsel. The opinion states: “[I]n a capital case the
attorney‟s duty to investigate all possible lines of defense is strictly observed.” This
contradicts the notion, as stated by the OCCA, that it is not the court‟s responsibility to
force counsel to further investigate issues of mental health. Seay reviews all of the
affidavits counsel received from medical professionals. All indicate that Williamson was
not mentally competent. The court rules that further investigation into Williamson‟s
mental health would have surely resulted in acquiring evidence that would have
significantly aided the defense, so much so, that the result of the trial may have been
different. In regards to the confession, counsel filed no motion challenging the
admissibility of the statements Williamson gave. The court finds that the voluntariness of
the confession is highly questionable. According to the records, the confession was given
in 1987. During this time, Williamson was in and out of several different mental
institutions and would sometimes not be on the medications he was given. The court
finds that counsel‟s refusal to challenge Williamson‟s mental capacity when he waived

12. 12
his rights and gave the dream confession was the most vital proof that Williamson had
received ineffective counsel.
The OCCA had ruled that withholding the videotape of Williamson‟s confession
was not a tactical denial of evidence by the State, but rather a delayed disclosure.
Therefore, the withholding of the tape was not a Brady violation. This court cites the
cases that the OCCA used to support this finding and rules that they are distinguishable
form this particular case. Seay states that the records clearly indicate that the videotape
was exculpatory evidence and the video was not given to counsel until after the trial.
Therefore, this was a Brady violation and denial of due process. This court also explores
the State‟s witness and lack thereof in certain instances. This court finds that because the
prosecution‟s case was built entirely on alleged admissions, it was imperative to the
defense that impeachment of those witnesses be an option. This contradicts the OCCA‟s
statement claiming that the State was not required to disclose any reason as to why
certain witnesses were made unavailable to testify. This court rules that, had the taped
confession been made available to the defense, the State‟s witnesses would have received
a more thorough cross-examination and the result of the trial would have likely been
different.
This court takes particular note regarding the motivation of Holland‟s testimony.
The record states that she testified for both Williamson‟s case, and the case against Karl
Fontenot (for the kidnapping, rape and murder of DeniceHarraway). Even though
Holland had two prior felony convictions, her sentenced was reduced to five years, with
three of the five years being suspended. This court finds that impeachment of this witness

13. 13
would have been essential to building a defense. The OCCA never addresses these issues
in their opinion.
II. Principal & Agent
a. Definition & Context
The Principal-Agent Model is one method of constructing and analyzing
hierarchical relationships. The principal is a figure that holds an extent of authority over
certain agents. Because the principal and agents have a distinct separation of goals, the
result is often times an output that does not accurately match the original premise of the
task originally assigned by the principal. The difference causing the output is known as
shirking. If the principal detects shirking from the agent, the principal will sanction, or
punish, the agent somehow. This model can be used with multiple principals and agents
as shown in the relationship between the OCCA and the U.S. District Court. Typically in
these situations, the agent will shirk the principal that it believes will punish him less.
b. Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals
In the state of Oklahoma, appellate court judges are chosen through merit
selection. In order to maintain their role in the courts, the appellate judges face retention
election toward the end of their original term. In the case of the OCCA, two principals
can be established: the state of Oklahoma and the federal court system. The goal
hierarchy between the two principals significantly differentiates from one another. For
example, the state of Oklahoma places a burden on its appellate court for strict law
enforcement and little chance of acquittal or appeal. On the other hand, the federal court
system‟s goal is for the OCCA to follow the Constitution as interpreted by higher courts
in the federal jurisdiction. The state of Oklahoma is given a heavier influence over how

14. 14
court decisions are upheld because of the people‟s power to choose whether a judge
retains his position or not.
c. U.S. District Court of Oklahoma
Judges selected to serve for one of the U.S. District Courts are selected by the
President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, as per the Constitution. A
state senator typically recommends the judges after they‟ve served a number of years in
their respective state courts. Federal court judges do not face retention election. Instead,
they enjoy a life term. The U.S. District Courts have only one established principal: The
U.S. Supreme Court. The task assigned to the U.S. District Court is to uphold the
Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In this situation, the goal hierarchy of
the principal and agent are fairly uniform because of the simplicity of the task assigned.
d. Shirking & Outputs
The significant differences between the two court opinions are the result of goal
conflict and shirking on the part of the agent. Because the agent is more likely to shirk
under the principal that is perceived to sanction less, this incentives the agent to prefer
one principal over the other. In this case, the state of Oklahoma has the ability to sanction
the judges on the OCCA by forcing them out of their position via retention election.
Based on the previous polls from past elections, there is a notable pattern between a
judge‟s term and his disposition toward crime. Essentially, judges who are the least likely
to be pro-defendant are the ones who typically hold their positions longer. This influences
how the OCCA carries out the task assigned by the federal court jurisdiction.
In contrast, the U.S. District Court judges don‟t have to be concerned with
reelection or retention because they serve life tenure. With only one principal to answer

15. 15
to, this makes this particular agent less likely to shirk its duties to fulfill the goals of both
itself and its principal. Once the District Court discovers the shirking done on the part of
the OCCA, they sanction the lower court by striking down their holding and issuing a
new trial for Williamson.
III. Systemic Bias
a. Inherent biases in common law precedent
According to Gallanter, there are two types of players established within the
common law system: one shotters and repeat players. Repeat players are litigators that
often have portfolio disputes and take cases from larger litigants. In criminal cases, the
state is often considered the ultimate repeat player. One shotters are litigators that handle
single disputes for smaller litigants. The common law web seems to favor the repeat
player. In the U.S. criminal justice system, almost all cases go to trial. This results in the
backlogging of court dockets and long delays between filing charges and the trial date.
The typical legal strategy for the one shotter is to maximize award damages or minimize
reimbursement periods. Repeat players won‟t usually go to court unless there is a promise
of a positive ruling. This results in most cases being settled outside of court. In criminal
cases, this solution is the result of a plea bargain. This is a situation in which a defendant
enters a certain plea for the guarantee of a less harsh sentence. This method is ideal for
the state because it provides a positive precedent for them while accomplishing the task
of putting away criminals. However, for innocent people caught in this system, the result
is usually much different due to the circumstances. In Williamson‟s case, the exercising
of his rights led to him being sentenced to death.

16. 16
b. Interoffice Networking Influence
Because the courts have to deal with an increasing number of cases, they need to
create strategies to efficiently handle the backlog. In order to do this, certain institutional
norms are established to influence the outcome of the criminal justice system. Each
officer of the court plays a role in this institution and can negatively innocent persons
brought into the system by mistake.
Typically, the first person that those faced with criminal charges approach is the
prosecuting attorney. If he or she chooses not to drop the charges, the very next option for
the accused is to take a plea bargain. The majority of accused persons will accept a plea
bargain because it promises them a significantly lesser sentence. This works great for the
state and the accused, if the accused person is, in fact, guilty. In the Williamson case, plea
bargains were utilized to acquire testimonies from convicted criminals in exchange for a
lesser sentence. Almost all innocent people faced with criminal charges will refuse to
accept a plea bargain and exercise their rights to a fair and speedy trial. Unfortunately,
going through with that process has been shown to result in very harsh sentences under
the presumption of being guilty.
Defense counsel has been showed to be involved in this bureaucratic process by
using clients as a means to reach an end. This is especially true of “lawyer regulars”.
These are defense attorneys that appear frequently in the courtroom and rely heavily on
the assistant of law enforcement officials, prosecuting attorneys and judges. These
particular attorneys often handle indigent cases and take on the role of public defender.
Unfortunately, defense counsel will prioritize his relationship with all three of these
institutions over the interests of their client for the purposes of maintaining those

17. 17
organizational structures. If defense counsel has any shred of doubt in the client‟s
innocence, they won‟t zealously defend their client because it‟s simply not worth the time
or effort.
c. Prisoner’s Dilemma
Prisoner‟s Dilemma is a situation in which two or more suspects are separated
from each other and asked to confess or incriminate one of the other suspects for a crime.
In most instances, the police will suggest a plea bargain for those who are willing to
confess. Unfortunately, this creates perverse incentives for otherwise innocent people to
testify against each other, or in worse cases, confess to a crime they never committed.
Those caught in a prisoner‟s dilemma have two options: remain silent or confess. Those
who stay silent will either face the harshest punishment or be released; there is no middle
ground.
In Williamson‟s case, police were interrogating Williamson, Gore and Fritz. Gore
was already facing serious time in prison, and the cops were well aware of this. In
exchange for his testimony, the police offered Gore a lesser sentence. This is a perfect
example of how the Prisoner‟s Dilemma will almost always work against innocent
people. This is because those facing time are almost always willing to lie or cheat to
reduce their sentences. Williamson‟s silence also proved to work against him; instead of
taking the plea bargain, which could have given him life without parole or less, he went
to trial and was sentenced to death.

18. 18