by Samuel Roen
In the nearby press section, a flurry of whispers broke out again, and the judge rapped his gavel for quiet.
As the courtroom hushed, Jeff Ashton continued, point by point, listing the witnesses. He emphasized that Jonathon Huggins said that when they left the Days Inn to go home to Melbourne, his father was not with them and that he appeared later, driving the vehicle that impressed the boy.
Ashton stressed the point that Jonathon’s father did not leave with them. He questioned: “How did Huggins get from Osceola County to Brevard County? And why didn’t he go back with his family? The evidence shows that he went in a white SUV.”
Jeff Ashton stood quietly, waiting for the impact of this statement to score with the jury. Confidently following through in his methodical presentation, the prosecutor stated positively, “The family left the hotel, according to the record, without John Huggins.”
Ashton turned his attention to statements from Christopher Smithson, the witness who saw Huggins at the wheel of a white Explorer, coming out of the Disney woods, between 2:00 and 2:30 P.M.
Jeff Ashton paused and explained that Huggins was there at that time because he was taking care of the evidence.
There were a few gasps and some whispers among the gathered group in the courtroom: What did that mean? Taking care of what evidence?
Ashton said that Carla Larson’s body was very meticulously stripped of all of her clothing and jewelry, every bit.
He said the killer returned to the murder site later in the afternoon when there were no workers around having lunch, and he disposed of each piece of the victim’s clothing. That was when Smithson saw him leaving the area.
The prosecutor reminded the jury of the testimony of Angel’s mother seeing the Ford Explorer parked in her drive on June 10, driven by her son-in-law. Two neighbors across the street also saw the vehicle. Ashton stated that this vehicle was described as identical to Carla Larson’s in all respects.
The prosecutor recalled Kevin Smith’s testimony about the SUV, that his friend Huggins left it at his home for several days and that it was identical to Carla’s car.
Ashton looked at the jurors, who watched and listened, totally absorbed in what he was presenting. Scanning across their faces, he registered their attention and continued, bringing out the most incriminating piece of evidence in the case. He paused for dramatic effect and stated, “And then there is the jewelry.”
Jim Larson put his arm around his mother’s shoulders as tears welled into their eyes. The Thomases held hands tightly.
Jeff Ashton stated that Carla Larson’s jewelry was found in Faye Blades’s shed, a place where John Huggins was known to store items. There is no question it was Carla Larson’s jewelry, found by Faye herself, hidden in an electrical outlet.
He emphasized, “There is no way that anyone other than John Huggins could have put the jewelry in that shed.” The prosecutor ticked off the important points. “We know the killer was a man. There is only one man that you have heard evidence about in this case who was near the scene where Carla was kidnapped, who has a connection to the area where the car was burned—and had the ability to hide the jewelry in the shed.”
Shaking his head and moving back a step, Ashton declared, “There is no one else on earth that you have heard of in the evidence in this case that has all three.... The only person is John Steven Huggins.”
Ashton reviewed the taped interview with Huggins and discounted his blackouts, pointing out that no evidence was presented to demonstrate that any of his claims were true. The prosecutor instructed the jury: “Watch that tape, ladies and gentlemen, when you are back in the jury room.... Ask yourself, ‘Is this a guilty man trying to lie his way out?’ ”
Jeff Ashton looked at the individuals who held the fate of John Huggins in their collective hands.
Ashton brought up the matter of the pubic hair issue, telling how the court ordered Huggins to produce or allow pubic hair samples to be taken from his body. But the defendant shaved every bit of pubic hair off his body, making any hair analysis by the state absolutely impossible.
Ashton said that Huggins explained his shaving because of lice in the jail, but the prosecutor stated they had only his word for the reason. Ashton asked the jury to consider the credibility of the accused, stating, “You have to decide whether a statement made by a nine-time convicted felon is worthy of your belief.” He added, shaking his head, “It’s not.”
The prosecutor concluded by denouncing Huggins’s actions in destroying evidence. “It’s like stripping the body. It’s like burning the car. Every single thing that the killer of Carla Larson did is consistent, designed to make it impossible to find evidence to convict him, and that’s exactly what John Huggins did.”
ASA Jeff Ashton thanked Judge Belvin Perry, the members of the jury, and said that he would speak to them again, following defense attorney Bob Wesley’s closing statement.
Judge Perry turned toward the defense table and addressed, “Mr. Wesley.”
The defense lawyer rose to his full height and confidently began, “Please the court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Thank you for your attention and also thank you for your hospitality in Tampa.”
He started by stating that his client entered a plea of not guilty to the charges, explaining that it was the obligation of the state to prove the case against an accused. Then he discussed reasonable doubt. He went into a lecture on the law about which he said Judge Perry would instruct them.
He moved on to the subject of witnesses and how they often disagreed after seeing the same thing. He questioned the value of some of their testimony about the description of the vehicle driver, and went into detail about his hair, its length and if it was worn in a ponytail.
Wesley characterized the two latest witnesses as Johnny-come-latelies, suggesting they only came forward to be involved in an important case. The defense attorney concluded that some of their testimony was indefinite and virtually worthless.
Wesley cited disputing statements, not only from some of the witnesses, but from some of the investigators and specialists as well.
He reminded the jury they were not to speculate, paying attention only to the evidence presented.
The defense attorney stated that the prosecution did not even prove the ownership of the burned vehicle, not through a license plate or the vehicle identification number. He said, “There is not even a showing that the burned vehicle is Carla Larson’s.”
Then Wesley turned to Kevin Smith. The defense attorney cited that the vehicle was on his property, burned on the same block where he lived, and Smith had the radar detector in his custody.
Wesley wove a strong scenario linking Smith to the case, reminding the jury of Smith’s testifying on the stand. “You evaluate his demeanor. . . . You saw how relaxed he was.” Bob Wesley took a step back from the podium and, in a voice as sharp as the crack of a whip, accused, “He was comfortable because he is getting away with murder.”
The defense attorney continued with his review of Kevin Smith, questioning his testimony about his whereabouts on the day of the murder and when he saw John Huggins. He showed the jury photos of Kevin Smith, comparing them to the artist’s composite drawing, which he said more closely resembled Smith than Huggins, telling them to examine both when they were in the jury room.
He continued to harp on Smith’s statements, his alibi, his proximity to the burned car. Wesley stated that no one else was at his home on June 12 when Smith said Huggins left the car there, that they only had Smith’s word for what took place, if anything. He questioned if there were other people around and said that the home was a duplex with a lot going on, but no one saw John Huggins at Kevin Smith’s home. He asked the jury to determine whether Smith was telling the truth or not. Wesley said, “He tried to put together a good ‘aw-shucks’ story.”
The defense attorney brought up the burning of the vehicle, explaining that Kevin Smith tried to sell the jury a bill of goods. He said, “We know his approximatio
n to the burn. We know that he had the vehicle at his place. We know he is the logical candidate for the burn. We know nothing suggesting Mr. Huggins was involved in the burning.”
Wesley introduced Carla Larson’s jewelry, asking how it got to Faye Blades’s house. He laid out a scenario linking Kevin Smith, his girlfriend, Kimberly Allred, and Angel Huggins, implying there was a conspiracy to frame John Huggins by hiding it at Faye Blades’s house.
He questioned why it was not found when the crime scene technicians searched the place. “It stretches credibility to say that that outlet box itself was not searched.”
He scoffed at the prosecution’s conjecture that the jewelry was related in any way to John Huggins.
The defense attorney described the area of the Publix market, raising the question of why no one saw an abduction taking place in that grocery store parking lot. It was in a busy tourist area in the Disney neighborhood at noon in the middle of a hot summer day, with workers going there for food and families picking up supplies. All of this going on, so many people, so much activity in the store and in the parking lot, yet no one saw Carla Larson leave. No one saw a struggle or a man attempting to force a woman into a car. He said there was not a single fact to support the kidnapping, and he concluded, “It cannot be shown that Ms. Larson left against her will.”
He continued refuting the charges against John Huggins, explaining carjacking as a specialized form of robbery, that it means the car was taken by force or fear against a person’s will. He said there was no proof of that in this case.
The defense attorney said that the state couldn’t show when any of the events took place or where they took place or how they took place.
Wesley explained that the judge’s instruction would include the area of alibi, “which is a sort of legal term to say a person wasn’t present at the scene of the crime.” He said that John Huggins’s alibi was that he and his family were visiting in Kissimmee. The defense attorney told the jury if they had a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was present when the crime was committed, it was their duty to find him not guilty.
Wesley turned to the subject of the purse found on December 24, implying that the purse and its contents were deposited in the brush at some point after November 11, the date on the discarded prescription bottle, which was long after Huggins was arrested and incarcerated.
He told the jury that this was a case of circumstantial evidence. And he emphasized that for the jury to find a defendant guilty of first-degree murder, it must show that he is guilty beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt: “Because you know as jurors you’re bound by your oath to return a verdict based on the evidence.” He stated firmly, “The evidence does not show John Huggins was involved.. . . Suspicions cannot convict a person of first-degree murder. Your verdict should be not guilty.”
He thanked the jury for its attention and patience during the course of the trial and returned to his seat.
As the courtroom quietly waited, Judge Perry declared a ten-minute recess. Leaning forward, he stated to the jury, “I’ll ask you not to discuss this case among yourselves nor with anyone else.”
After the jury left the courtroom, the weary spectators rose to stretch. Some left the room; others milled around, whispering to each other.
Defense attorney Wesley rose and asked Judge Perry, “May I address the court on one matter briefly?”
Judge Perry nodded.
Wesley raised an objection to the state showing the videotape of Huggins’s interview in rebuttal. He said he did not mention the tape in his argument, therefore it could not be used now.
The courtroom was silent as people drew near to hear the oral argument.
Judge Perry looked over at the prosecution table and addressed, “Mr. Ashton?”
Jeff Ashton rose and faced the judge, saying, “Mr. Wesley mentioned alibi. This videotape contains all the statements that were put before the jury as to the defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the crime. That is directly relevant to that claim.” Ashton waited for Judge Perry’s response.
Wesley contended, “The issue is whether Huggins was present when the crime was committed.” He asserted, “We don’t know where the crime was committed. We know it wasn’t at the Days Inn.”
Judge Perry inquired, “Mr. Ashton, is it your intention to show the whole tape?”
Jeff Ashton responded, “Yes, sir, and discuss various aspects of it as they relate to the evidence.”
Bob Wesley disputed the argument. The temperature in the courtroom elevated several degrees as the differences took over the proceedings.
Ashton countered, “I think I’m pretty much permitted—”
“Folks, folks,” Judge Perry interceded. “I’m not going to tolerate that.”
Family members of the victim exchanged looks, whispering comments to each other.
The defendant sat quietly, observing the volley between the two attorneys, his face impassive, as though the proceedings had nothing to do with him.
The discussion continued, both sides putting forth their arguments, hoping for a favorable decision from the judge. The word “alibi” was the catchword, with the defense saying Huggins had an alibi and the prosecution arguing that there wasn’t any alibi.
Bob Wesley at his defense table shifted his massive weight in his chair, displaying his silent objections to the prosecutor’s contentions.
The judge, adjusting his glasses, tipped his head slightly and judiciously cautioned the prosecutor: “As long as it is rebuttal, then you’re fine.”
After the recess, when the court reconvened and the jury was seated, Ashton began his rebuttal. In opening he indicated that the judge would instruct the jury on the law and that they would be provided with typed copies of instructions to take back to the jury room with them.
Ashton then began methodically to refute the points Wesley raised in his closing. He went over each one and recalled testimony that directly contradicted each, including the prescription bottle, which he said distracted from the case since it was found in brush seven to ten feet away from the purse.
Ashton asserted, “That prescription bottle was never tied to anything remotely having anything to do with this case.”
He agreed with Wesley’s cautioning not to speculate, but said, “There is a difference between a speculation and a logical inference.” He gave examples of such difference and then became specific. “It is a logical inference that this lady went to the store and bought some grapes and pita bread. It is a reasonable and logical, almost undeniable, inference that she didn’t end up out in the field of her own free will.”
He turned to face Huggins, then gave his attention back to the jury. “Carla Larson did not voluntarily drive out in the woods with her killer. That,” he emphasized, “is not speculation. That is a reasonable—and, in fact, the only reasonable—inference that you can draw from these facts, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with drawing logical and reasonable inferences from facts that are proven in the record.”
The hard-driving prosecutor said, “There is an essential difference between a logical inference and a speculation.”
He gave an example of speculation. He stopped, panned his eyes across the jury and picked up: “An absolute, complete, total speculation is the claim that Kevin Smith was anywhere near this Publix supermarket on June 10, 1997. There is not one single shred of evidence of that. Nothing.” Ashton detailed Smith’s workday hours on that day when he was one hour away, which were verified. “And you have not heard one single solitary fact that should make you doubt that. For you to believe that he was anywhere near this Publix is an absolute rank and totally improper speculation.”
The prosecutor disputed the conspiracy theory of Angel, Kim, Kevin and Faye ganging up to frame John Huggins. “That’s ludicrous.... That’s speculation upon speculation upon guess upon speculation. That’s not evidence.” He paused to let his words sink in.
Judge Perry sat silently, staring owlishly throug
h his large dark-rimmed glasses, watching the prosecutor unrelentingly destroy the defense that Bob Wesley had conjured up for his client, but he showed no reaction. The long-experienced jurist would in no way display his thoughts.
Ashton continued, stressing that only John Huggins fit the criteria of Carla Larson’s killer. He cited the three factors that were important: that the person had to be in the area where Carla was kidnapped, had to have some connection with the burned vehicle and had to have access to the shed on Faye Blades’s property, where the jewelry was found.
“And John Huggins,” Ashton continued, “has all three. And John Huggins is the only human being on earth that you have heard about in this trial that has that connection.” Shaking his head, he emphasized, “No one else.”
Ashton told how the killer tried to destroy any possible evidence of his involvement in the case, stripping the body, hiding the jewelry, ditching the purse and finally burning the car to a cinder.
The prosecutor continued to gnaw away at the scenarios Wesley had tried to present: focusing on Kevin Smith as the killer, discounting state witnesses’ testimony, trying desperately to create a reasonable doubt. One by one, Ashton refuted the defense attorney’s points.
Carla Larson’s family listened intently, watching Ashton’s passionate presentation, clearly pleased at the prosecutor’s step-by-step linking of John Huggins to the murder.
John Huggins sat as he had through the entire proceedings, emotionless, inscrutable, seemingly indifferent to the debate about his life swirling around him.
Jeff Ashton moved to face the jury, telling them that the evidence showed no alibi: “Nothing to show that Mr. Huggins was any place other than at the Days Inn or the Publix parking lot.”
When he played the tape of Huggins’s interview with the reporter, Ashton invited the jury to look at and review Huggins’s taped statement and find anywhere in it that there was evidence of an alibi.
Ashton told the jury that when Huggins said, “I don’t think that I am the person that killed Carla Larson,” the prosecutor urged, “Look at his eyes.”
