Anastasia's Memorial | Correspondence With a Killer | Case Re-Creates the Crime | The Case Against Case | Frequently Asked Questions | News stories

In Their Own Words

This is a list of transcripts of testimony, cross-examination, and statements made by various witnesses and court officers during the trial State of Missouri v. Byron Case, Case No. CR2001-03527, from April 29 through May 2, 2002, along with the pre-trial motions and rulings April 19 and April 25, 2002, and the sentencing hearing on June 28, 2002.
TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Date
Category
Description
Pages
Date
Category
Description
Pages
Friday, April 19, 2002
Pre-trial
Motions
1-42
Tuesday, April 30, 2002
Defense Testimony
Dawn Wright
814-833
Thursday, April 25, 2002
"
Rulings
43-132
"
"
Jamie Lynn Smith
833-853
Monday, April 29, 2002
Opening statements
Additional rulings/Instructions
341-356
"
"
Evelyn Case
853-892
"
"
Therese Crayon, Prosecution
356-404
Wednesday, May 1, 2002
"
Nancy Nolker
893-899
"
"
Horton Lance, Defense
404-421
"
"
David Hill
899-907
"
Prosecution Testimony
David Epperson
421-437
"
"
Abraham Kneisley
907-948
"
"
Kelly Moffett
437-618
"
"
Tara McDowell
948-987
Tuesdsay, April 30, 2002
"
Debra Moffett
619-654
"
"
Don Rand
987-1001
"
"
Diane Marshall
654-675
"
"
Dr. Edward Friedlander
1001-1010
"
"
Francesca WitbolsFeugen
675-695
"
"
Byron Case
1010-1160
"
"
Glenn Colliver
695-713
Thursday, May 2, 2002Closing StatementsInstructions to the jury
1161-1169
"
"
John Bruton
713-740
"
"
Therese Crayon, Prosecution
1169-1187
"
"
Jim Dodd
740-758
"
"
Horton Lance, Defense
1188-1218
"
"
Albert DeValkenaere
758-762
"
"
David Fry, Prosecution
1219-1228
"
"
Dr. Chase Blanchard
762-795
"
Verdict
Court and jury
1228-1248
"
"
Scott Atwell
795-813
Friday, June 28, 2002
Sentencing hearing
Statements, findings, and sentence
1249-1290
Please note that Jury Selection (known as "Voir Dire"), running from page 133 through 340 on Friday, April 26, 2002, has not yet been transcribed. At 200+ pages, it is the longest single transcript of the trial. We may include it later for its instructional value, but we gave a higher priority to those transcripts in which evidence or testimony were presented, and there were also a few issues regarding privacy of the jurors and prospective jurors that would require a certain amount of editing.