Jury selection set for college student murder trial
By Melanie Davis
melanie@highcountrymedia.net

Kyle Quentin Triplett, 23, dressed in khakis and a dress shirt, entered the near empty courtroom on Monday morning to begin the proceedings of a murder trial. Triplett carried a Bible as he sat down next to his defense counsel. His mother, father, sister and two of his former teachers sat behind him in support.

Triplett faces charges of first degree murder, first degree kidnapping, robbery with a dangerous weapon and felony burning of personal property. The charges stem from the death of 19-year-old Stephen Harrington, whose body was found on Nov. 8, 2005 on Sleepy Hollow Lane in Foscoe.

Harrington was discovered when a vehicle fire was reported at 7:45 a.m. Foscoe firefighters and a Watauga County Sheriff’s deputy responded to the scene and discovered the body after prying open the trunk of the 2000 Subaru Legacy. Harrington’s arms had been bound with duct tape behind his body, and duct tape had been wrapped around his mouth and nose. The body had been set on fire and was partially burned when found.

Three men, Triplett, Matthew Brandon Dalrymple, 22, and Neil Matthew Sargeant, 26, were arrested in connection with the incident the next day. In January 2006, Judge James Baker of Watauga Superior Court approved the grand jury’s recommendation that the circumstances of the crime constitute a capital offense.

This designation allows a possible death sentence if convicted.

The three men have pleaded not guilty and will have separate trials. The first, Triplett, began on Monday. Baker heard pre-trial motions from both Charles Byrd, assistant district attorney and lead prosecutor for the state, and lead defense attorney Jeffrey Hedrick.

Harrington’s parents and two other family members sat silently behind the prosecutors for the duration of the pre-trial proceedings.

The defense made motions concerning recent developments stemming from a Friday hearing in superior court during which co-defendant Dalrymple agreed to testify against Triplett.

In return for his cooperation, the death penalty will be taken off the table for Dalrymple. There is also a stipulation referred to as “use immunity,” which means any statements made during the Triplett trial will not be used against Dalrymple during his own criminal proceedings. “Use immunity” does not indicate the lack of prosecution.

The first motion was made by the state to join the charges. This motion combines the four charges for the purposes of trial. Defense counsel did not object and the motion was allowed by Baker.

The first motion by the defense requested the court to order further forensic testing of the duct tape used to bind Harrington to be completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Hedrick contends the duct tape was not examined by the State Bureau of Investigations to the extent the defense would deem necessary. Their argument stated the layers of duct tape had not been pried apart and examined for latent fingerprints. Defense requested FBI examination based on the expertise of these lab technicians.

The prosecutors answered this argument by stating the duct tape had been examined twice by the SBI, and could not be fully separated into layers due to melting. Prosecutors contended the evidence had been examined thoroughly by the SBI.

The defense’s motion to compel further testing was denied.

Based on statements made by Dalrymple at Friday’s hearing, defense made a motion for the court to order the state to subpoena Brian Tolbert, chief detective of the Watauga County Sheriff’s Office at the time of the three men’s arrests. This motion stems from a comment within Dalrymple’s statement which says he was interviewed a third time by Tolbert. The first statement, which denies involvement, and the second statement, which admits involvement have been recorded in the case.

On Sept. 10, Dalrymple provided another statement, alleging this third interview of which there is no record. What is referred to as the “fourth” interview, the Sept. 10 statement, provided in exchange for removing the death penalty possibility, was allegedly inconsistent with the second documented statement by Dalrymple in the case.

The defense counsel requested the state subpoena Tolbert to verify whether or not the “third” interview took place and why it was not documented if it did in fact take place. “The state will call Dalrymple as a witness against Triplett and this is a pivotal point in the defense of this case,” Hedrick said.

The state responded by stating it was the defense’s responsibility to call Tolbert. Throughout arguments it was revealed that Tolbert now works outside of the country and reaching him has proved difficult.

The motion to order the state to locate and secure testimony from Tolbert was denied.

The next motion by the defense was to sanction the “third” and “fourth” statements of Dalrymple on the basis that the prosecution had not provided documentation of “third” statement to the defense. A sanction would prevent those statements from being heard by the jury.

The prosecution responded by stating there was no prior knowledge of the “third” statement, which had only been revealed in the “fourth” statement of Dalrymple’s contention and re-counting of it.

Arguments continued on the matter, including calling Dalrymple’s defense attorney Scott Casey to the witness stand. Casey could not speak of matters protected by the attorney-client privilege. He statedhe had no knowledge that Tolbert had interviewed Dalrymple for a third time.

Both parties agreed to a stipulation that former Watauga County sheriff Mark Shook would be unaware of any formal interview, and further that it was Tolbert’s habit to record any discussions and provide documentation of such discussions.

On the information that Dalrymple’s statement is the only record of the interview, and the state did provide the defense with the evidence as soon as it was discovered, the motion to sanction statements “three and four” was denied.

After a recess for lunch, the court resumed session with a motion from the defense requesting information from the prosecution concerning Dalrymple’s belief that he would serve only five to 10 years. The defense requested documentation of any deals, suggested or perceived to be suggested.

The prosecution responded the court had already received a copy of the agreement with Dalrymple, which said nothing of sentencing beyond removing the death penalty possibly. “It is human nature to expect something in return, however, no such sentence has been promised,” said district attorney Jerry Wilson.

Wilson, also serving on prosecution for the state, went on to explain that Sargeant had been offered the same, but declined as of trial date.

The motion requesting information was allowed, in so much that the prosecution answered the request at that time.

The next motion to be made by the defense was a motion to suppress evidence, specifically Triplett’s statement made at the time of arrest. This motion had been filed a month ago, contending Triplett had been under the influence of controlled substances at the time he gave the statement and was unable to understand the situation.

This motion was held back due to information received by the defense during the lunch recess.

Shook had arrived at the courthouse with the telephone number of Tolbert in Haiti. The defense requested this motion be delayed until Tolbert could be contacted and possibly appear in court. According to Shook, Tolbert is willing to travel to the United States in order to give a statement regarding the “third” interview of Dalrymple.

Baker agreed to the delayed motion to suppress and the proceedings moved forward to the defense’s final motion. The defense made a motion regarding the prosecution referring or alluding to time of death during jury selection. This motion is in regards to the burning of the body. The defense wished this prejudicial fact be excluded from jury selection questioning. Evidence will be presented during the trial on Harrington’s time of death. The state medical examiner’s report indicates asphyxiation, though evidence will be presented by both parties through expert witnesses, as to whether Harrington’s body was set aflame before or after death.

This matter is a point of contention between the defense and the prosecution.

The prosecution responded to the motion by stating the matter would not be a part of jury selection, as they are aware that such matters would be improper. The judge’s ruling on the motion simply stated that both parties abide by the evidence and argument principles, which state if evidence is presented, the matter can be argued.

The defense went on to ask that the prosecution notify them before bringing the time of death issue before the jury during trial. This request was denied.

The state brought one more matter to the court’s attention: the defense’s use of the word “immunity” when referring to Dalrymple’s agreement. The prosecution contends this word has the potential to mislead the jury by giving the impression of a lack prosecution. The term “use immunity” refers only to the statement given being used against the defendant/witness in further criminal proceeding.

The judge’s decision regarding this motion was simply a restating of legal code of conduct, which states neither the defense nor the prosecution can intentionally mislead the jury nor confuse the fact finders in the case.

During the trial, the defense may question the agreement made with Dalrymple but must not refer to it as an “immunity agreement.”

This is the first trial to be held in the newly renovated courtroom, therefore parties clarified jury seating and the selection process. Jury selection commenced on Tuesday and is expected to continue for a few days. There were 59 potential jurors called, of which 16 will be selected. Twelve will serve with four alternates.