Page 1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF YAVAPAI
3
STATE OF ARIZONA, )
4 )
Plaintiff, ) Yavapai County
5 ) Superior Court
vs. ) No. P1300CR201600966
6 )
THOMAS JONATHAN CHANTRY, )
7 )
Defendant. )
8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9
10 BEFORE THE HONORABLE BRADLEY ASTROWSKY
11 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
12
CAMP VERDE, ARIZONA
13 August 8, 2018
14
15
16 JURY TRIAL DAY 8
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LISA A. STEINMEYER, CRR, RPR, CSR
25 Arizona License No. 50942
 Page 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Yavapai County
Attorney's Office
4 Ms. Susan Eazer
Deputy County Attorney
5 255 East Gurley Street
Suite 300
6 Prescott, AZ 86301
7
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Mr. John M. Sears
8 Attorney at Law
511 East Gurley Street
9 Prescott, AZ 86301
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 Page 3

1 I N D E X
2
3 WITNESSES FOR THE STATE P A G E
4 ERIC OWENS
Cross Examination by Mr. Sears 17
5 Redirect Examination by Ms. Eazer 59
6 CHRISTOPHER J. MARLEY
Direct Examination by Ms. Eazer 70
7 Cross Examination by Mr. Sears 91
Redirect Examination by Ms. Eazer 146
8 Jury Question No. 8 160
Jury Question No. 9 160
9 Follow-Up Examination by Mr. Sears 163
10 T W
Cont. Direct Exam by Ms. Eazer 167
11 Cross Examination by Mr. Sears 189
Redirect Examination by Ms. Eazer 229
12
RULE 20 MOTION 237
13
14
WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT P A G E
15
16 DEBORAH DAVIS DEPOSITION PLAYED 282
17
18 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 285
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 Page 4

1 (Whereupon, the following proceedings

2 were had:)
3 THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. We're
4 back on the record in P1300CR201600966 concerning
5 State of Arizona versus Thomas Chantry. I note the 08:38AM

6 presence of counsel and the defendant.

7 I received e-mails from both counsel
8 concerning proposed final instructions. I'll
9 prepare a draft and I'll distribute it and we'll
10 have time to talk about that later. 08:38AM

11 Before we begin today, is there anything we

12 need to address?
13 MR. SEARS: Yes. A couple of housekeeping
14 matters. Earlier I marked three new exhibits, 73,
15 74 and 75, and I'll be looking momentarily for a 08:39AM

16 stipulation from the State to their admission. 73

17 is a recording on a DVD of the audio telephone
18 conversation between Detective Belling and Mr.
19 Battaglia that was played in court and the court
20 asked us to provide a copy. That's Exhibit 73. 08:39AM

21 THE COURT: For the appellate record, not

22 to go to the jury?
23 MR. SEARS: Yes.
24 THE COURT: Thank you.
25 MR. SEARS: And Exhibits 74 and 75 are 08:39AM
 Page 5

1 related. Over the weekend we were made aware by

2 Miss Eazer of some issues regarding the redaction of
3 testimony in the video deposition of Dr. Davis that
4 caused us to go back in detail, and we found a
5 couple of places where an objection had been 08:39AM

6 overlooked in the redacted part, in the editing

7 part. So we've done two things. We've produced
8 Version 2 of the flash drive, which we now -- and
9 we've given a copy of that to the State. We now
10 believe it, after careful review, is a complete and 08:40AM

11 appropriate redaction taking into account the

12 court's rulings and objections but also redacting at
13 the beginning and the end of the video some
14 extraneous matters. So the video begins with the
15 videographer saying we are going on the record. 08:40AM

16 Prior to that, there's about seven and a half pages

17 of conversations primarily between Miss Eazer and me
18 about process and procedure that we have redacted,
19 and then at the end there was administrative talk
20 between the videographer and the court reporter 08:40AM

21 about where copies would be sent and those sorts of

22 things. We've redacted that. That's Exhibit 74.
23 Exhibit 66 was Version 1 so we would propose
24 to play only Exhibit 74 to the jury, but I think it
25 needs to be admitted, of course, before we do that. 08:40AM
 Page 6

1 THE COURT: Well, I don't know that it

2 needs to be admitted for purposes of going to the
3 jury. The jury is not going to get it. It will be
4 treated like regular testimony but it will be
5 admitted for purposes of the record. 08:41AM

6 MR. SEARS: I've spoken with your court

7 reporter this morning, and I think she and I agree
8 that because we have Exhibit 75, which is now a
9 fully redacted transcript of the Davis deposition
10 which would be word for word what the jury will hear 08:41AM

11 in the recording, I'm not of the opinion that the

12 court reporter need to also report the deposition.
13 We have a transcript for that purpose.
14 THE COURT: I agree with that.
15 MR. SEARS: Thank you. 08:41AM

16 THE COURT: So, first, concerning the

17 recording of the phone call with Mr. Battaglia, I'll
18 admit it for purposes of the appellate record.
19 Next, concerning the deposition, it will be
20 admitted again for purposes of the appellate record 08:41AM

21 which will be then played for the jury and the

22 transcript as well for the same reason, which is 73,
23 74 and 75 respectively.
24 Anything else?
25 MR. SEARS: Yes, a couple of things. 08:42AM
 Page 7

1 Having to do with the order of proceedings this week

2 and next and where things are going, we've spent a
3 fair amount of time trying to catch up and review
4 where we stand with the remainder of the State's
5 case, the need for time to do a thorough Rule 20 08:42AM

6 motion before the court and then beginning our case

7 beginning with this video deposition, which is now
8 three hours and fifteen minutes we estimate. The
9 run time is a little bit shorter after some of the
10 edits, and then the live testimony of Pastor 08:42AM

11 Lindblad and then ending with the testimony of the

12 defendant in this case. We think that that is
13 likely to take us through Thursday of this week and
14 probably into Friday and, in fact, the testimony of
15 the defendant, based on our preparation I think, 08:42AM

16 depending on what time we start with him, if at all

17 on Thursday, is going to consume a fair amount of
18 Friday. What I thought, consistent with the court's
19 obtaining this extra trial date but knowing that the
20 jury hadn't counted on it, when we finish with the 08:43AM

21 testimony of the defendant and we learn whether the

22 State is going to put on any rebuttal case, if we
23 still had time at the end of the day on Friday, I
24 would propose to use that for settling jury
25 instructions and all agree that closing, final 08:43AM
 Page 8

1 instructions and closings and submission of the case

2 to the jury would take place on Tuesday.
3 THE COURT: That makes sense to me that if
4 we get done early on Friday, we could spend the rest
5 of that time going over instructions and finalizing 08:43AM

6 those. That's fine with me.

7 MR. SEARS: Send the jury home.
8 THE COURT: Send the jury home, and let's
9 play it by ear. If it's 9:15, we may have a
10 different discussion than if it's a different time 08:43AM

11 of day.
12 MR. SEARS: I still -- even if it were
13 9:15, I have asked several times, and the court has
14 been receptive to my request, that we not consider
15 submitting the case for closing and submitting the 08:44AM

16 case to the jury on Friday.

17 THE COURT: Sure. Well, again, I want to
18 be flexible concerning what time we're talking about
19 on Friday. We could always instruct on Friday,
20 which takes a bit of time, and then perhaps even get 08:44AM

21 to the State's closing, break, come back on Tuesday,

22 do your closing and then the State's rebuttal and
23 then give it to them that day. We'll have to see
24 where we are.
25 MR. SEARS: From a purely selfish point of 08:44AM
 Page 9

1 view, I'm just looking at the preparation time I

2 need to do my closing and a lot of this will be
3 governed by whether or not the State puts on any
4 rebuttal case, and I don't expect the State to know
5 at this moment or if they've even addressed whether 08:44AM

6 that's likely to happen.

7 THE COURT: Sure. I want to be flexible.
8 We added an extra day, so I don't want to have it
9 where they come in at 9:00 and then we're done at
10 10:00 because they are giving up their time, but we 08:45AM

11 won't have a situation where it's in their hands at

12 the end of the day on Friday.
13 MR. SEARS: Thank you, and I'm not
14 confident that we would have time between now and
15 Friday morning to settle instructions so that if we 08:45AM

16 finish really early on Friday, which I also think is

17 unlikely, we could go right to final instructions
18 with the jury. Then we'd have to have some time to
19 go over the instructions.
20 THE COURT: Sure. Absolutely. 08:45AM

21 MR. SEARS: You have to have time to

22 produce the draft for circulation.
23 THE COURT: Right.
24 MR. SEARS: There's one final matter that
25 came up at the very end of the testimony of Mr. 08:45AM
 Page 10

1 Owens when we were last here.

2 THE COURT: Is this the issue we talked
3 about or something else?
4 MR. SEARS: It's the issue we talked about,
5 but I received an e-mail last evening, I didn't see 08:45AM

6 it until this morning, from Miss Eazer sharing with

7 me, as she always does, information that she gets
8 from her most recent discussions with witnesses, and
9 I appreciate that, and that's been helpful all
10 along, but there was a mention in there that she had 08:46AM

11 met with Mr. Owens and another witness and talked to

12 them about not offering opinions about my client's
13 -- I think his Christianity or his alleged lack of
14 proper repentance, and that struck me that if
15 they've been instructed not to go there, I believe 08:46AM

16 that the court authorized me at the end of the day

17 to do that on the theory that the testimony of this
18 witness opened the door in a very limited way to
19 talk about his opinions because they go to bias on
20 his part and also to talk about this one provision 08:46AM

21 of the resolution of the church council, not the

22 whole resolution, just that one provision because
23 that became relevant again in my view.
24 THE COURT: No. 8 I think he said?
25 MR. SEARS: It is, good memory, and that 08:46AM
 Page 11

1 has to do with the position of Miller Valley Baptist

2 Church in opposition to my client's church applying
3 for membership in ARBCA and at the time of all of
4 those things, and that's the only purpose I would
5 want to go over with him that that was the position, 08:47AM

6 and I think the State has another witness that may

7 have even more direct knowledge of that, so I don't
8 intend to go long, but if the State thinks that
9 those topics were out of bounds now, we ought to
10 have some common understanding about whether that's 08:47AM

11 true or not.
12 THE COURT: Sure. Let's talk about the
13 last thing he brought up concerning Mr. Owens. Mr.
14 Owens did volunteer that information, which I think
15 that opened the door to cross examine on those 08:47AM

16 topics. Do you want to be heard or do you have any

17 comments on that?
18 MS. EAZER: Judge, no. I've instructed the
19 witness that if he's asked directly by Mr. Sears,
20 just try to make sure he stays focused. I didn't 08:47AM

21 intend for him to obviously start going into

22 Christianity. I don't disagree that Mr. Sears gets
23 to cross examine on that and No. 8. I don't think
24 it opens the door to the whole church thing, the
25 church document because obviously that opens, you 08:48AM
 Page 12

1 know, that opens a whole other can of worms, and

2 just for real quick purpose of the record, the
3 reason I asked about, you know, No. 8 was because
4 Mr. Sears said the timing of, you know, the
5 allegations coming out, the police reports being 08:48AM

6 made, when Miller Valley was withdrawing and that

7 was because he had not in their view complied with
8 No. 8. So I was trying to keep it limited, but
9 sometimes with the witnesses, they want to offer a
10 little bit more. 08:48AM

11 THE COURT: Things happen.

12 MS. EAZER: So I just told him to listen
13 very carefully. I really just wanted to make sure
14 he wasn't offering any other inappropriate opinions
15 about the defendant. So I don't disagree that Mr. 08:48AM

16 Sears gets to go into that area.

17 THE COURT: Great. Any other comments
18 about scheduling issues?
19 MS. EAZER: A couple, Judge. Number one --
20 well, as I'm sitting here thinking, you know, and 08:48AM

21 I've been wrong before, but I'm thinking the State's

22 witnesses shouldn't take us longer than until noon
23 today and then the three and a half hour deposition
24 I would think, you know, we would have time to,
25 number one, deal with the Rule 20 and the three and 08:49AM
 Page 13

1 a half hour deposition this afternoon. I don't know

2 how conceivably the defendant and Mr. Lindblad could
3 take a whole day or into a second day but we'll have
4 to wait and see. I do have concerns that Mr. Sears
5 isn't going to go into character evidence because I 08:49AM

6 have requested notice of that and indicated if he

7 went into good character evidence, that there are
8 other acts that the State believes that, you know,
9 and things that the State believes that would open
10 the door. I've never gotten notice that he's going 08:49AM

11 to put on good character evidence. So I agree. We

12 see where it goes, Judge, but two things. If we
13 finish on Thursday, I would hope we could go to
14 closings on Friday and if we're like half a day in
15 or into the afternoon, I would prefer to, you know, 08:50AM

16 be able to do all closings in succession as opposed

17 to the State doing its closing and then picking up
18 over the weekend, but obviously I'll do whatever the
19 court instructs me to do, but I guess I was thinking
20 we would be doing closings Friday. 08:50AM

21 THE COURT: Like I said, we'll be flexible

22 and see how the schedule takes us.
23 MS. EAZER: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Anything else, Miss Eazer?
25 MS. EAZER: No. Just the bit about 08:50AM
 Page 14

1 character evidence, Pastor Lindblad is the one

2 witness for the defense and the defendant because
3 there are a number of other things. If that's going
4 to come up, I would like to know so I could plan
5 rebuttal. 08:50AM

6 THE COURT: Sure. You are done with direct

7 so we'll begin cross this morning of Mr. Owens;
8 correct?
9 MS. EAZER: Right.
10 THE COURT: Thank you. 08:50AM

11 MR. SEARS: Who will come on next?

12 MS. EAZER: Christopher Marley and then
13 T .
14 MR. SEARS: Finish T W ?
15 THE COURT: Is P W testifying? 08:51AM

16 MS. EAZER: No, I don't think so.

17 THE COURT: So you'll rest after T
18 W then?
19 MS. EAZER: Yes.
20 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else? 08:51AM

21 MR. SEARS: Just in terms of scheduling,

22 the amount of time between now and Friday to finish
23 preparing my closing, we've been working on it for
24 quite a long time, I think just I would be -- unless
25 miracle of miracles and we're done with evidence at 08:51AM
 Page 15

1 9:15 on Friday morning and have nothing else to do

2 and we've settled the jury instructions quickly --
3 again, I'm not thinking that's entirely likely -- I
4 would really resist the idea of having to do my
5 closing on Friday afternoon under any circumstances, 08:51AM

6 and my experience has been that splitting up the

7 closings between days works sometimes to the
8 disadvantage of both parties. There are reasons pro
9 and con for doing the closings in succession,
10 particularly if the State comes back with any sort 08:52AM

11 of lengthy rebuttal in their closing and

12 particularly if you spread it out over three days.
13 There's a three-day break between her opening. I'm
14 not sure we're going to get there. I'm not as
15 optimistic as the State as to time. 08:52AM

16 THE COURT: I appreciate that. We'll have

17 to see where we are perhaps at the end of the day
18 and, in addition, I don't want to have a situation
19 where let's say we break Friday and we set aside
20 Tuesday for closings and closings aren't done on 08:52AM

21 Tuesday because this is a criminal case so I'm not

22 putting time limits on people, and the openings took
23 longer than I think both of you anticipated. Not a
24 criticism but it just happens sometimes. I
25 understand that, and I don't want a situation where 08:52AM
 Page 16

1 we're not done with closings on Tuesday and going

2 into Wednesday. So if we could start on Friday,
3 time permitting, then, you know, we may have a break
4 in between just so we can get it to the jury on
5 Tuesday, but we'll see where we are. We can't make 08:53AM

6 any commitments right now.

7 MR. SEARS: Thank you. It still causes me
8 concern that we might not be fully ready on Friday
9 afternoon to do my closing, and I understand
10 everything that you've said this morning about being 08:53AM

11 flexible and waiting on the court. There's only so

12 many hours in the day.
13 THE COURT: I get it. I understand that.
14 Anything else before we bring in -- I don't know if
15 all the jurors are here but before we start? 08:53AM

16 MS. EAZER: No. I was hoping to be able to

17 run to the restroom.
18 THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead. Just so
19 you're aware, there is a jury being selected today
20 next door FYI. 08:53AM

21 (Whereupon, the jury entered the

22 courtroom.)
23 THE COURT: Good morning. Welcome back.
24 Good to see you all. We're on cross examination of
25 this witness. Go ahead, sir. 09:01AM
 Page 17

1 CROSS EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. SEARS:
3 Q Good morning, Mr. Owens.
4 A Good morning.
5 Q Good to see you again. 09:02AM

6 A Yeah.
7 Q We met at Miss Eazer's office back on
8 Valentine's Day in 2017. Do you remember that?
9 A I do.
10 Q And I'm going to ask you some questions here 09:02AM

11 in a bit about some of the things we talked about as

12 well as things you said here in this trial. Let me
13 begin, if we could, to get a little clearer picture
14 for me of your background at Miller Valley Church.
15 Information I have seen is that you might have been 09:02AM

16 ordained as an elder of that church in April of

17 1999. Does that seem accurate?
18 A I'm going to take your word for it.
19 Q Well, that may be dangerous. That information
20 came to me from a timeline that was prepared for 09:02AM

21 this church council we've heard so much about that

22 says it came from you and Rich Howe. We've heard
23 testimony about Rich putting it together and you
24 sort of looking it over. Is that what happened?
25 A Yes. 09:03AM
 Page 18

1 Q And in that timeline, there's an entry that

2 you were ordained on a particular day in April of
3 1999. So given that background, does that sound
4 accurate?
5 A It does. 09:03AM

6 Q And so prior to that, you were an important

7 member of Miller Valley Baptist Church but you were
8 not an official of the church; is that correct?
9 A Correct.
10 Q And how long had you been attending Miller 09:03AM

11 Valley before your ordination in April of 1999?

12 A If it was in '99, we began attending there in
13 1986.
14 Q So you had been there for many years when Bob
15 Selph was the pastor; is that right? 09:03AM

16 A Yes.
17 Q We heard you talk last week about your
18 impression of Pastor Selph and the impact his moving
19 on had on you personally and also on the church. In
20 April of 1999 the other elder of the church would 09:04AM

21 have been Rich Howe; is that right?

22 A Yes.
23 Q And were there deacons?
24 A I believe so.
25 Q Do you remember who? 09:04AM
 Page 19

1 A Possibly Dave Frasier.

2 Q That's a name I think we've heard. Can you
3 speak up just a little, sir, in the microphone?
4 A Yeah.
5 Q That's much better. Thank you. 09:04AM

6 A I'm trying to remember if or who we had for

7 deacons in 1999. Is that what you are asking?
8 Q 1999 into the end of 2000, that time period,
9 the first two years or so of your eldership if
10 there's such a word. Is it called eldership? 09:04AM

11 A Yes.
12 Q Thank you. That first two-year period, '99 to
13 2000, if you remember. If you don't, that's fine.
14 It's a long time ago.
15 A Well, it would be T W and Dave 09:05AM

16 Frasier. I believe they may have been the only two.

17 Q We'll hear from Mr. W some more in this
18 trial. Maybe he can remember exactly when he
19 started as a deacon in the church, and we've heard a
20 description that deacons have a different job 09:05AM

21 description than elders. Would you consider the

22 position of elder at Miller Valley Baptist Church to
23 be a clergy position?
24 A Not necessarily.
25 Q My understanding from Rich Howe's testimony is 09:05AM
 Page 20

1 that, among the other duties of an elder, from time

2 to time you would be called on to actually preach in
3 church; is that accurate?
4 A That would be accurate.
5 Q And you've done that? 09:05AM

6 A I have.
7 Q And you did it in 1999 and 2000, I would
8 imagine; correct?
9 A Surely I did.
10 Q And you would have responsibilities as an 09:05AM

11 elder to counsel on some informal basis members of

12 the church with various matters, spiritual and
13 personal; is that fair to say?
14 A If it was something that -- in the event our
15 pastor couldn't or wouldn't. 09:06AM

16 Q Did that happen from time to time with you as

17 an elder, that for one reason or another you would
18 wind up providing some sort of counseling to fellow
19 members of the church?
20 A No. 09:06AM

21 Q Did Rich Howe to your knowledge during that

22 period, '99 to 2000, counsel even informally members
23 of the church about matters?
24 A Likely.
25 Q That was his style? 09:06AM
 Page 21

1 A He was in essence the elder elder and so --

2 Q And my understanding is that in the Reformed
3 Baptist Church the pastor is also considered an
4 elder; is that right?
5 A Exactly. 09:07AM

6 Q And so if you had an elders meeting in 1999 or

7 2000, all things being equal, it would include
8 Thomas Chantry, you and Rich Howe?
9 A Generally.
10 Q There would be some times when one or the 09:07AM

11 other of you wouldn't be there, but if it was a

12 fully attended elders meeting, all three of you
13 would be there; right?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Now, are you familiar with the concept of 09:07AM

16 mandatory reporting under Arizona law; do you know

17 what I'm talking about?
18 A I'm not.
19 Q Have you ever received any instruction or
20 information about the idea that certain people, 09:07AM

21 including clergy, are obligated under the law to

22 report allegations of harm to children? It's a
23 detailed statute but in general that's the
24 obligation. Have you ever heard anything like that?
25 A Recently I have, yes. 09:07AM
 Page 22

1 Q How recently?
2 A Oh, probably within the last year.
3 Q Okay, and back in 1999 or particularly in 2000
4 were you aware of the mandatory reporting law
5 structure generally in Arizona? 09:08AM

6 A I was not.
7 Q So would it be fair to say when you began to
8 receive information in October of 2000 that Thomas
9 Chantry had behaved improperly towards a child in
10 the church, it never crossed your mind that you 09:08AM

11 might have to be reporting that under the law?

12 A No.
13 Q You had no conversations with Rich Howe or
14 anyone else about what to do with this information?
15 A No. 09:08AM

16 Q Now, specifically in October of 2000, as

17 you've told us previously, you received information
18 from some sources that a particular child, D
19 L , was claiming that he had been physically
20 abused by Thomas Chantry; is that right? 09:08AM

21 A Not totally.
22 Q What's not right about that?
23 A Are you referencing the phone call that I
24 received on the Friday, the 20th?
25 Q Well, that's a starting point. You told us, I 09:09AM
 Page 23

1 believe, that you received information from sources,

2 and we'll talk about who those people were, but
3 sources that contained information about specific
4 allegations of physical abuse by Tom of young D
5 L ; correct? 09:09AM

6 A No. There were no specifics when it began.

7 Q Let's break this down then. Who was this
8 phone call that you are telling us about today from?
9 A Bob Selph.
10 Q And that was on October 20th of 2000? 09:10AM

11 A Correct.
12 Q And Bob Selph called you out of the blue to
13 talk about some new allegation or was it a call
14 where other matters were discussed?
15 A No. Just this. 09:10AM

16 Q As a result of that phone call -- you remember

17 all these rules about hearsay, you can't tell us
18 what you said and what he said because he's not
19 here, but as a result of this phone call, did you
20 then do something, take some action? 09:10AM

21 A I did.
22 Q Okay. What did you do?
23 A I went to the parsonage.
24 Q Yes, and?
25 A To -- 09:10AM
 Page 24

1 A JUROR: I can't hear the witness.

2 THE COURT: Brian, can you please move the
3 microphone?
4 MR. SEARS: Much better.
5 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. 09:10AM

6 MR. SEARS: I have a sign here, Your Honor,

7 that says please use the microphone. I thought it
8 was only for me. I guess it applies to everybody.
9 Q (By Mr. Sears) Would you go ahead with your
10 answer, sir? 09:11AM

11 A I went to the parsonage to meet with Thomas

12 Chantry.
13 Q Now, let's back up. In this phone
14 conversation with Bob Selph on the 20th of October,
15 2000, did you receive information in that 09:11AM

16 communication about allegations of physical abuse by

17 Tom of some child?
18 A I believe the word physical abuse was not
19 used.
20 Q You can't tell me what word was used. Is the 09:11AM

21 gist of that conversation that Bob Selph was

22 reporting to you that people were saying that Tom
23 had done something wrong to a child; is that
24 accurate?
25 A No. It wasn't plural. 09:11AM
 Page 25

1 Q I think I said child. We are talking about

2 one child.
3 A People were saying.
4 Q One person was saying?
5 A Correct. 09:12AM

6 Q So let's see if we can connect the dots here.

7 Bob Selph told you that he heard from some person at
8 the church about these allegations that Tom had done
9 something to a child; correct?
10 A Correct. 09:12AM

11 Q Okay. Now, when you went to see Tom, did you

12 have some specific information at least identifying
13 the child and a general idea of what these
14 allegations were following this call from Bob Selph?
15 A Yes. 09:12AM

16 Q And this is the time when you say that Tom was
17 sitting there in the parsonage and said I've done
18 something I can't recover from, I've spanked
19 children, I may have gone too far; this is that
20 meeting? 09:12AM

21 A Yes.
22 Q Okay. In that same meeting did you confront
23 Tom with these allegations?
24 A Confront him?
25 Q Did you tell Tom that the reason you were 09:12AM
 Page 26

1 there to visit him was to talk about these

2 allegations that you had received; correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q I don't mean confront, go toe to toe with him.
5 I'm just saying you told him why you were there and 09:13AM

6 what you had heard; correct?

7 A Correct.
8 Q So that was part of what you said. Did you
9 have a discussion with Tom about what his version of
10 those events might be? 09:13AM

11 A No.
12 Q Tom didn't offer any statement at all about
13 whether these allegations were true or anything like
14 that?
15 A Yes. 09:13AM

16 Q What did he say?

17 A I spanked some children and I may have gone
18 too far.
19 Q Did you ask him specifically about spanking
20 D L ? 09:13AM

21 A No.
22 Q Did you use the name D L in this
23 conversation at the parsonage on October 20th?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And did Tom make any other statements to you 09:13AM
 Page 27

1 other than this one that you repeated now two or

2 three times about I've done something I can't
3 recover from, that whole statement; did he say
4 anything else?
5 A Probably. 09:14AM

6 Q Do you remember what he said?

7 A Nothing of any significance to the reason I
8 was there. So I'd say small talk as in are you
9 ready, can we go. That type of thing you mean?
10 Q Are you ready, can we go; this was a related 09:14AM

11 matter; this was to make a specific apology; is that

12 what you were talking to him about at that point or
13 was that too early in the process?
14 A No. That's exactly why we were there.
15 Q Looking back at this chronology, Rich Howe 09:15AM

16 told us he became aware of these allegations about

17 Tom and D L a few days before October 20th;
18 is that right?
19 A That's what I understand, yes.
20 Q Right, and October 20th apparently was the day 09:15AM

21 literally that Rich Howe got on a plane and flew to

22 Israel; right?
23 A Exactly.
24 Q And left this issue for you to resolve?
25 A Yes. 09:15AM
 Page 28

1 Q And so in that period of time, I could tell

2 you it looks like it was between the 17th of October
3 and the 20th of October, 2000, there were other
4 conversations with Thomas Chantry; is that right?
5 A Not with myself. 09:15AM

6 Q With Rich?
7 A Possibly.
8 Q Okay, and as a result of those conversations,
9 was it your understanding from Rich, sort of his
10 parting instructions, that what he wanted you to do 09:15AM

11 as the elder elder to the junior elder was to

12 accompany Tom over to D L 's home and have
13 Tom speak with D and D 's mother and
14 apologize?
15 A Yes. 09:16AM

16 Q And that happened; right?

17 A No.
18 Q Well, let's break it down. Did you at some
19 point go with Tom to C S L 's home,
20 D 's mother? 09:16AM

21 A Yes.
22 Q And did you go with Tom to the home with the
23 understanding that the purpose of that trip was
24 going to be for Tom to speak with C S and
25 D ? 09:16AM
 Page 29

1 A Yes.
2 Q And was it your understanding that during this
3 conversation it was expected that Tom would in some
4 way apologize to C S and D ?
5 A I would have to clarify that. The intention 09:16AM

6 was not to apologize.

7 Q What was the intention?
8 A To confess and ask for forgiveness.
9 Q Confess to what?
10 A The things that he had done. 09:17AM

11 Q All right. Well, that seems to be a point

12 that is present in almost every subsequent
13 conversation. You believed that Tom not only agreed
14 to but was expected to confess to whatever it is
15 that D L and his mother were saying 09:17AM

16 happened; that was in your mind the confession that

17 was going to be made; whatever they're saying,
18 that's what I did?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay, and Tom didn't do that, did he? 09:17AM

21 A No.
22 Q And, in fact, Tom apologized to C S
23 for spanking D without her express permission;
24 right?
25 A Please ask that question again. 09:17AM
 Page 30

1 Q In fact, Tom apologized to C S L

2 in your presence for having spanked her son without
3 her permission; correct?
4 A No.
5 Q Tom didn't even bring that up; is that what 09:18AM

6 you're saying?
7 A Correct.
8 Q Was it your understanding, particularly at
9 that meeting, that Tom was unwilling to confess or
10 apologize for something that he maintained he didn't 09:18AM

11 do?
12 A Run that by me again.
13 Q Well, maybe we can go at this a different way.
14 At the end of your testimony last week you said in
15 front of this jury that talking about this dispute 09:18AM

16 years later, 2015 and 2016, that arose when Tom

17 tried to bring his church in Wisconsin into ARBCA,
18 the national association, that there was a problem
19 because you personally believed that Tom had not
20 complied with what he had been recommended to do 09:19AM

21 years before in terms of apologizing and seeking

22 forgiveness from the family, correct, you were
23 convinced he hadn't done that?
24 A Correct.
25 Q And you said, and I wrote it down, that right 09:19AM
 Page 31

1 at the end that Tom was not a Christian. Do you

2 remember saying that?
3 A I did.
4 Q Yeah. So he was not a Christian because he
5 was still unwilling apparently to apologize for 09:19AM

6 things that he said he hadn't done?

7 A To -- that wasn't entirely what I said but
8 that was part of what I said.
9 Q Well, go ahead and clarify. Tell us what you
10 meant to say. 09:19AM

11 A I believed, based on his actions and his

12 inactions, that it's my personal opinion that he is
13 not a Christian.
14 Q And was that the official position of Miller
15 Valley Baptist Church of which you were an elder in 09:20AM

16 2015, 2016, that Tom was not a Christian and,

17 therefore, should not be considered with his church
18 to be members of ARBCA; is that what you're saying?
19 A No, no.
20 Q Was that just your private opinion? 09:20AM

21 A Correct.
22 Q Excuse me. My hearing aid battery is going
23 out in the middle of a deal here. Anyway, did you
24 make your opinion about Tom's lack of Christianity
25 known to anyone else at Miller Valley Baptist Church 09:20AM
 Page 32

1 in 2015, '16?
2 A It may have come up in conversation with Chris
3 Marley.
4 Q Chris Marley Junior?
5 A Yes. 09:20AM

6 Q Who was one of the pastors of the church at

7 the time?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay, and did he appear to share your view
10 that Tom was not a Christian? 09:20AM

11 A He didn't tell me one way or the other.

12 Q So help me out here, Mr. Owens. You have this
13 belief that Tom is not a Christian and that appears
14 to be connected to Tom's repeated unwillingness over
15 the years, beginning in 2000 and continuing up to 09:21AM

16 today, to decline to admit or confess to things that

17 he maintains he did not do. You think he should;
18 you think he should confess to what other people are
19 saying about him; is that right?
20 A In part. 09:21AM

21 Q And in your mind personally, that if a person

22 is faced with allegations, somebody, the only
23 Christian thing for them to do is to fully admit and
24 confess to whatever those people are saying about
25 them, true or false? 09:21AM
 Page 33

1 A No.
2 Q In the resolution, for want of a better word,
3 of the church council in 2000, the council made a
4 series of recommendations and you talked about one
5 specifically. You remembered the number, 09:22AM

6 Recommendation No. 8; right?

7 A Yes.
8 Q And that had to do with things that Tom needed
9 to do in the opinion of the church council if he
10 ever wanted to recover from this situation and in 09:22AM

11 particular if he ever wanted to be a pastor again,

12 right, that he had a series of things that the
13 church council recommended he do; right?
14 A Correct.
15 Q Now, you understood in 2000 that this church 09:22AM

16 council was put together by Bob Selph; you knew

17 that; right?
18 A No.
19 Q Who put it together?
20 A I don't know. 09:22AM

21 Q It just happened?
22 A Somebody started making phone calls I'm sure.
23 Q Okay. Let's go back again. Do you remember
24 the period of time in early November 2000 that a
25 flurry of things happened that first week that ended 09:23AM
 Page 34

1 with Tom submitting his resignation as pastor of

2 Miller Valley Baptist Church; do you remember that
3 sequence of events?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And do you remember being part of the 09:23AM

6 telephone call with Rich Howe to a man named Don

7 Lindblad that very day, November 8th, 2000?
8 A This was -- what was the date on this?
9 Q November 8th, 2000, the date on Tom's
10 resignation letter. 09:23AM

11 A Okay.
12 Q Do you remember participating in a telephone
13 call with Rich Howe and a man named Don Lindblad
14 that day about Tom's resignation?
15 A I don't. 09:23AM

16 Q Did you know who Don Lindblad was; did you

17 know him in 2000?
18 A By name, yes.
19 Q And shortly after that, just a few days after
20 that, did you travel with Rich Howe to Escondido, 09:24AM

21 California to an ARBCA convention?

22 A No, I don't believe we did.
23 Q Okay. You didn't go?
24 A A few days after the 8th?
25 Q November 14th, six days after. Do you 09:24AM
 Page 35

1 remember being in Escondido for a conference that

2 was called the Banner, B-A-N-N-E-R, Conference?
3 A Maybe I did.
4 Q Okay, and do you remember being there with
5 Rich Howe, traveling from Prescott to Escondido with 09:24AM

6 Rich?
7 A We -- likely.
8 Q Okay, and do you remember at that conference
9 meeting with Bob Selph?
10 A I don't. 09:24AM

11 Q Do you remember meeting with Don Lindblad?

12 A I don't.
13 Q Do you remember meeting with Earl Blackburn?
14 A I don't.
15 Q Do you remember meeting with Steve Martin, not 09:25AM

16 the comedian but the pastor?

17 A I don't.
18 Q So you have no recollection of that?
19 A No.
20 Q Do you remember coming back from that 09:25AM

21 conference with Rich and discussing the suggestion

22 that maybe a way to resolve this issue at the
23 church, Tom leaving and these issues still being
24 unresolved, would be to have an informal church
25 council put together by ARBCA to hear everybody and 09:25AM
 Page 36

1 hear their stories and make some recommendations

2 about what might be done; do you remember that?
3 A I don't.
4 Q Were you just not part of this decision-making
5 process; is that what you are telling us here today; 09:25AM

6 that if people remembered you there, you weren't?

7 A Surely it happened, but I would venture to say
8 that once these men volunteered to come out, that
9 the ball was rolling and it was -- there was nothing
10 more that I contributed to it. 09:26AM

11 Q Except to be there?
12 A When they showed up, yes.
13 Q When they showed up. So if there was planning
14 done, who the people on this council would be, how
15 they would get there, where the meetings would take 09:26AM

16 place, those things, you weren't part of that

17 process; is that what you're saying?
18 A No. It was just helping put together phone
19 numbers and names of the folks from the church.
20 Q Well, let's go back to October now, a few 09:26AM

21 weeks before Tom resigned. In addition to the

22 allegations that you learned about and you've
23 explained to us all the ways this information came
24 to you about Tom and D L , did the names of
25 any other children in the church come to your 09:27AM
 Page 37

1 attention at that time who were making similar

2 claims about Tom?
3 A Are you referring to the 20th or the 21st?
4 Q Let's start on the 20th, the day you first
5 heard from Bob Selph that this information was out 09:27AM

6 there.
7 A No.
8 Q No other names?
9 A No.
10 Q Now, eventually we know, and the jury has 09:27AM

11 heard considerable testimony, that by the time the

12 church council was convened in mid December in 2000,
13 there were a number of children and their families
14 that had come forward; is that accurate?
15 A Yes. 09:27AM

16 Q And were you involved in any way in trying to

17 identify who these other families might be other
18 than the L s?
19 A I'm trying to -- I don't understand the
20 question. Trying to identify them? 09:27AM

21 Q Can you shed any light on how these other

22 families came forward with this information between
23 late October and mid December about Thomas Chantry;
24 how did that happen?
25 A How did they come forward? 09:28AM
 Page 38

1 Q Yes.
2 A I'm sure word of mouth.
3 Q What makes you say that?
4 A That's generally how these matters roll.
5 Q Did you participate in any activity that would 09:28AM

6 have sent the word out to members of the church

7 saying if anybody has anything to say about Tom
8 Chantry and his treatment of your children, now is a
9 good time to do it?
10 A Did I send that out, no. 09:28AM

11 Q Were you aware that anybody else did that in

12 the church, Rich or T W or anybody else?
13 A I would venture to say that probably.
14 Q Were you aware of it; did you hear it or see
15 it? 09:28AM

16 A I seen the effect of it.

17 Q So you assumed that somebody must have said
18 something? These people didn't just spontaneously
19 come forward; right?
20 A Correct. 09:29AM

21 Q They had to know this was the time to do it;

22 right?
23 A That's generally what happens.
24 Q Now, going back to the allegations of D
25 L , did you speak privately with D L at 09:29AM
 Page 39

1 any point about his allegations?

2 A I did not.
3 Q Okay. Did you hear information from some
4 source that D L and his mother were
5 claiming that he had marks on him as a result of 09:29AM

6 something Tom Chantry had done?

7 A I did.
8 Q Did you ever see them?
9 A I did not.
10 Q Did you ever ask if there were photographs of 09:29AM

11 them?
12 A No.
13 Q So this meeting at C S L 's house
14 that you attended must have been pretty brief,
15 right, if Tom wasn't going to say much; is that 09:29AM

16 right?
17 A Didn't say much more than what he had admitted
18 to at the parsonage.
19 Q Okay, and did Tom ask C S for her
20 forgiveness as you expected? 09:30AM

21 A No.
22 Q Did C S say even though I haven't been
23 asked, I forgive you?
24 A What I understood, that she may have made a
25 phone call to him and he apologized for something 09:30AM
 Page 40

1 later but not in that meeting.

2 Q Okay. C S may have called Tom
3 directly, is that what you understand or that Tom
4 called her?
5 A I think. I don't know. 09:30AM

6 Q Maybe the next day?

7 A I don't know.
8 Q Okay. Had you been asked by Rich Howe to take
9 Tom anyplace else to apologize and confess and ask
10 forgiveness other than C S 's? 09:30AM

11 A It was a blanket statement to any others that

12 Tom may have sinned against.
13 Q Sinned against in any way?
14 A No.
15 Q The specific doing something bad to your 09:31AM

16 children; that's what we're talking about?

17 A Correct.
18 Q And at that time when you got that
19 information, did you have in mind any other people,
20 any other families, any other children other than 09:31AM

21 D L and his mother?

22 A I had nobody else in mind but, yeah, when Tom
23 had used children in the plural and after we got in
24 the car and I asked him the question, are there
25 others we need to go see and he said no. 09:31AM
 Page 41

1 Q So there was no place for you to take him?

2 A No place to take him.
3 Q Did Tom ever go and apologize to members of
4 your extended family?
5 A If he did, I'm not aware of it. 09:31AM

6 Q You don't know that Rich might have taken him

7 to one or more of your brothers' places?
8 A I have no idea.
9 Q You weren't invited?
10 A No. 09:32AM

11 Q And did you ever at any time after this take

12 Tom to someplace to apologize to some other church
13 member for something?
14 A No.
15 Q Okay. Now, I know we're jumping around back 09:32AM

16 and forth here but let's move forward if we could to

17 the time period of 2015 and 2016. You were still an
18 elder of the church?
19 A Yes.
20 Q You're an elder today as we sit here; correct? 09:32AM

21 A Yes.
22 Q And you became fully aware of the situation in
23 ARBCA at about the time of the general assembly that
24 year in April of 2015 when Tom was there. Did you
25 hear that story? 09:32AM
 Page 42

1 A I did.
2 Q And Chris Marley Junior from your church was
3 at this general assembly in Texas; right?
4 A Yes.
5 Q The general assembly is an annual meeting held 09:33AM

6 in the spring of the Association of Reformed Baptist

7 Churches of America, ARBCA; right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And at that time Miller Valley Baptist Church
10 had been a member of ARBCA for many years; correct? 09:33AM

11 A Yes.
12 Q Going back to before you became an elder;
13 correct?
14 A I believe so.
15 Q And ARBCA was an important part of your 09:33AM

16 church's existence because it gave your small church

17 here in Prescott a voice in a much larger group of
18 like-minded Reformed Baptists; correct?
19 A Not really.
20 Q Was there any value to the Miller Valley 09:33AM

21 Baptist Church to belong to ARBCA in 1999, 2000?

22 A Yeah, as there is in any association you are a
23 part of.
24 Q And you thought the association personally in
25 2015, 2016 was still a worthwhile thing for the 09:33AM
 Page 43

1 Miller Valley Baptist Church to continue to belong

2 to; right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q But when you got word through Chris Marley,
5 who had been there, that Tom had appeared and the 09:34AM

6 story was that Tom was at some point thereafter

7 going to apply for membership for his church in
8 Wisconsin, that was upsetting to you; right?
9 A No.
10 Q You didn't care? 09:34AM

11 A Yeah.
12 Q Okay. You cared?
13 A I cared.
14 Q And so you thought it was a good idea for
15 Miller Valley Baptist Church to actively oppose 09:34AM

16 Tom's application; correct; that was your personal

17 view; right?
18 A I believe that was our duty.
19 Q Right, and that became the official position
20 of Miller Valley Baptist Church with respect to 09:34AM

21 Tom's application in 2015 to join ARBCA; right?

22 A I would say.
23 Q Now, ARBCA membership is voluntary, isn't it;
24 you don't have to belong to ARBCA to be a Reformed
25 Baptist Church in this country? 09:35AM
 Page 44

1 A Correct.
2 Q And not every Reformed Baptist Church is a
3 member?
4 A Correct.
5 Q In fact, it appears that Tom was a pastor of a 09:35AM

6 church in Wisconsin for a number of years that was

7 not a member of ARBCA, that church?
8 A I guess.
9 Q And the sort of process for applying for
10 membership, are you familiar at all with that? 09:35AM

11 A Vaguely.
12 Q But a church has to make an actual application
13 to a committee of ARBCA, the membership committee;
14 is that your understanding?
15 A That sounds correct. 09:35AM

16 Q Okay, and between April of 2015 and late June

17 of 2015, did you eventually become aware that in
18 fact Tom had done that on behalf of his church, that
19 he sent an official application to have his church
20 become a member of ARBCA? 09:35AM

21 A I don't know the dates but somewhere in that

22 stretch.
23 Q And the membership application of a church is
24 -- ARBCA is an association of churches, not people;
25 right; individuals don't belong; churches do; right? 09:36AM
 Page 45

1 A Yes.
2 Q So Tom as the pastor of the church would have
3 been the logical person to make application on
4 behalf of his church; right?
5 A I would venture to say yeah. 09:36AM

6 Q And when you got this information from Chris

7 Marley when he got back from the general assembly in
8 April of 2015, were you surprised to hear that Tom
9 was the pastor of any church?
10 A Oh, I had known that for a long time. 09:36AM

11 Q How did you know that?

12 A Just word of mouth.
13 Q Okay, and did you do anything to try and
14 interfere with Tom's pastorship at this church in
15 Wisconsin? 09:36AM

16 A Absolutely not.
17 Q That was his business and their business and
18 not yours; right?
19 A I didn't agree with it but that's -- I did
20 nothing. 09:37AM

21 Q Joining ARBCA was another matter for you; you

22 felt that was your business; right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q And you felt that you had an obligation to
25 raise these objections; correct? 09:37AM
 Page 46

1 A Correct.
2 Q Now, the objection, as we understand it from
3 your earlier testimony and from Rich Howe's
4 testimony, was that Tom had not complied with some
5 of the recommendations given to him by the church 09:37AM

6 council about what he needed to do if he wanted to

7 be an ARBCA pastor or more to the point, be a pastor
8 of a church that joined ARBCA; that's ARBCA's role;
9 they can regulate who is or is not a member of their
10 association; correct? 09:37AM

11 A Run that by me again.

12 Q Sure. That might be two questions. Let me
13 break it down. ARBCA decides who is and isn't
14 appropriate to be a member of their association;
15 correct? 09:37AM

16 A Correct.
17 Q And it's a membership society, so, in fact,
18 it's the membership instructing ARBCA which way to
19 go on an application, to reject it or accept it?
20 A Correct. 09:38AM

21 Q And they have a committee and like most

22 associations, the committee makes some findings and
23 makes a recommendation but ultimately it takes a
24 vote of the membership of ARBCA for a church to
25 join; right? 09:38AM
 Page 47

1 A Yes.
2 Q These votes are typically taken at these
3 annual April general assemblies; correct?
4 A I believe.
5 Q So if Tom was applying after general assembly 09:38AM

6 in 2015, the final vote, if everything was in order,

7 for approval or disapproval would have been in April
8 of 2016; right?
9 A I'm going to take your word for it. I don't
10 follow them. 09:38AM

11 Q You weren't following this?

12 A No.
13 Q You were letting Chris Marley and other people
14 deal with this as well?
15 A Well, I think they did what they could. 09:38AM

16 Q Right, and they were like mind with you; there

17 was no one in leadership at Miller Valley Baptist
18 Church in 2015 or 2016 that thought it was a good
19 idea that Tom join ARBCA?
20 A It really didn't go much beyond the eldership, 09:39AM

21 so I couldn't answer that.

22 Q That was your job?
23 A Yes.
24 Q When I say you, I mean you and Rich; correct?
25 A Yes. 09:39AM
 Page 48

1 Q Now, in July of 2015 did you come to be aware

2 of information that another young man who had been a
3 member of this family of Miller Valley Baptist
4 Church back in 2000 was now coming forward with
5 allegations about Tom sexually molesting him? 09:39AM

6 A Yes.
7 Q And how did you first become aware of that?
8 A A phone call and I don't remember who it was
9 from.
10 Q Let me guess. Bob Selph? 09:39AM

11 A No.
12 Q Okay. Did you ever talk to Bob Selph about
13 J E ?
14 A No.
15 Q And what was the first thing that you did in 09:40AM

16 connection with these allegations; do you remember

17 what the first thing you did was?
18 A Agreed on a place and time to meet.
19 Q Who put the meeting together?
20 A I guess it was probably J 's folks. 09:40AM

21 Q H and P E ?
22 A Yeah. It was at their house.
23 Q Now, they had not been members of Miller
24 Valley Baptist Church for years at that point?
25 A A long time. 09:40AM
 Page 49

1 Q Had you had much contact with either H

2 or P over the years?
3 A No.
4 Q So you get a call and the call was to invite
5 you to some meeting at their house; is that right? 09:40AM

6 A Yes.
7 Q Any other people from Miller Valley invited?
8 A Myself, Rich, Chris.
9 Q Chris Marley?
10 A Yes. 09:40AM

11 Q And did you and Rich and Chris Marley all

12 attend this meeting?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Okay. Who else was there?
15 A Two other gentlemen that I had never met 09:41AM

16 before. I just -- one was a law enforcement guy and

17 another was maybe a pastor, associate pastor. I
18 don't even remember their names.
19 Q Okay. Was it your impression that those two
20 individuals were connected with the church that 09:41AM

21 H and P were currently attending?

22 A Or at least where J was attending. I don't
23 know.
24 Q Does the name Cornerstone Church ring a bell?
25 A That's the name you mentioned last time we 09:41AM
 Page 50

1 met.
2 Q All the way back on Valentine's Day. As you
3 sit here today, does that ring a bell?
4 A I recall that's what you said it was,
5 Cornerstone. 09:41AM

6 Q So there's H and P . Was J present?

7 A Yes.
8 Q For the whole meeting?
9 A I don't know that you would consider it the
10 whole meeting. 09:42AM

11 Q Begin to end?
12 A They were there before we got there if that's
13 considered part of the meeting.
14 Q Well, they were present the entire time you
15 were there; is that right? 09:42AM

16 A Yes.
17 Q They being H and P and J ; correct?
18 A Correct.
19 Q And what about the other people, Rich and
20 Chris Marley Junior and this sheriff's deputy and 09:42AM

21 the person from Cornerstone Church; were they also

22 there when you got there?
23 A Yes.
24 Q So you were sort of last in the meeting?
25 A Yes. 09:42AM
 Page 51

1 Q And did you leave before the others?

2 A I think we kind of all got up and were all
3 leaving about the same time. There may have been
4 some other folks that lingered after that but we
5 were -- when we wrapped it up, I think we were all 09:42AM

6 leaving essentially the same time.

7 Q And at that meeting do you remember J
8 E explaining what had happened to him,
9 offering some account of what he now remembered had
10 happened to him years before? 09:43AM

11 A Yes.
12 Q Were any questions put to J E by any
13 of the people at this meeting about his
14 recollection?
15 A Questions about his recollection? No. There 09:43AM

16 may have been the asking. Maybe he started a little

17 bit vague and then became more specific.
18 Q And was there any discussion in your presence
19 at this meeting at H and P E ' house in
20 July of 2015 about allegations of other children 09:43AM

21 back in 2000 against Tom; did other names resurface

22 like D L or M J or anyone else who
23 was involved in 2000?
24 A No, no discussion.
25 Q Were the names mentioned? 09:44AM
 Page 52

1 A If they were, I don't recall.

2 Q You don't remember H talking
3 specifically about her cousin D L ?
4 A Unless it was directed -- she was pretty much
5 afoot and maybe she was talking to one of the other 09:44AM

6 guys that were there. There was sometimes more than

7 one conversation going on.
8 Q There wasn't a big conference table --
9 A No.
10 Q -- in somebody's home and -- 09:44AM

11 A No. Couches and chairs.

12 Q But all of the people were in one place at the
13 same time; all the people invited to this meeting
14 were all in one room at the same time?
15 A Yeah. 09:44AM

16 Q Now, was there a plan of action developed

17 while you were present at this meeting, what was
18 going to be done?
19 A I recall just the one gentleman. I don't know
20 if he was an officer or something, that I think he 09:45AM

21 directed his direction to J and to P and

22 H that you need to take this to the
23 authorities; you need to file -- make a report, you
24 know.
25 Q And did J and his mother indicate that 09:45AM
 Page 53

1 that's what they intended to do?

2 A I believe they did, yes.
3 Q And was it the recommendation of the police
4 officer that that happen right away, next thing?
5 A Oh, yeah. He had some urgency on it, yeah. 09:45AM

6 Q Do you remember a discussion with this

7 associate pastor, who we think is Dan Rydberg from
8 Cornerstone Church, about whether he needed to
9 report this incident himself because he was a
10 mandatory reporter; do you remember that? 09:45AM

11 A I don't recall any discussion to that end.

12 Q Do you remember a discussion about Dan Rydberg
13 needing to report this for any reason, that he also
14 had to go and report this?
15 A That may have occurred. I know -- I believe 09:46AM

16 it was maybe Chris that emphasized that you need to

17 do this because if you don't, we have to.
18 Q And was it your understanding then that what
19 Chris Marley Junior was saying was because I
20 personally am a mandatory reporter and if you don't 09:46AM

21 do it, under the law I have to do it; is that your

22 understanding of what he was saying at the time?
23 A Yes.
24 Q So you had at least in July of 2015 some idea
25 that there was such a thing as mandatory reporting 09:46AM
 Page 54

1 that applied to some people; some people were

2 obligated under the law to do that?
3 A I guess, yeah.
4 Q Maybe just not you; is that right?
5 A I -- probably. 09:47AM

6 Q And so let's jump back in time again. See if

7 we can go back to 2000, whatever was going on in
8 2000. So when the church council finally met, if I
9 told you that it was for three days beginning on
10 December 13th, 2000, does that sound about right? 09:47AM

11 A Yes.
12 Q It looks like you told the detective,
13 Detective Belling, in this case when you saw her on
14 January 19th, 2016, that you thought that the church
15 council investigated this for about two weeks? 09:47AM

16 A Must have took something down wrong.

17 Q Wrong?
18 A Yeah. The stretch of time from the phone call
19 to the 13th was three weeks or something like that
20 but, yeah -- no. The time they were here was only 09:48AM

21 three or four days.

22 Q And did you participate personally in any of
23 the activities of this church council?
24 A I believe we met with them briefly when they
25 arrived. We met with them at the conclusion. 09:48AM
 Page 55

1 Q When you say we, that's you and Rich?

2 A Yes.
3 Q And Chris Marley Junior?
4 A No, no.
5 Q You had no pastor then? 09:48AM

6 A No. He was just a little guy then.

7 Q And you had no pastor then; Tom had just
8 resigned?
9 A Correct.
10 Q You were without a pastor, so the church was 09:48AM

11 being run effectively by you and Rich until a new

12 pastor was selected?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And when you say you met with them, it would
15 have been the three members of the church council; 09:48AM

16 is that right?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Did you know any of them personally before you
19 met them?
20 A No. 09:49AM

21 Q But you had some understanding of their

22 reputation, who they were and why they were chosen?
23 A Brief background, who they were, yeah.
24 Q Now, there was a time apparently during this
25 three-day process with the church council where the 09:49AM
 Page 56

1 council members met with every family and every

2 child that were involved in these allegations; is
3 that accurate?
4 A That was the intent.
5 Q Do you know if that happened? 09:49AM

6 A I don't.
7 Q Okay. Were you at Rich's house, Rich Howe's
8 house on the day when the council arrived there and
9 met in turn with each of the families and then with
10 each of the children involved; were you at the house 09:49AM

11 that day?
12 A No.
13 Q You have a clear recollection that you were
14 not there; is that right?
15 A I didn't sit in on any of the meetings. 09:49AM

16 Q Well, I'm not asking you about the meetings,

17 just if you were in and around the house when the
18 children and their families had assembled waiting to
19 go in and talk to the church council. Were you
20 there? 09:50AM

21 A I may have been there when they first arrived

22 but...
23 Q Do you have some understanding of the physical
24 arrangements at Rich's house that day, where in the
25 house the council was going to be, where the 09:50AM
 Page 57

1 families would wait, where the children were

2 interviewed; did you know anything about that?
3 A No.
4 Q And I understand that you didn't participate
5 in the meetings. I don't think anybody other than 09:50AM

6 the council members and the people they were

7 interviewing were present. You don't think Rich was
8 part of those meetings, do you?
9 A I don't believe so.
10 Q Or Chris Marley? 09:50AM

11 A He wasn't around.
12 Q Well, he wasn't here; he was a little boy.
13 Nobody else from the church?
14 A Not that I'm aware of.
15 Q There wouldn't have been anybody else; it was 09:50AM

16 just the two of you; right?

17 A Correct.
18 Q Now, did you see or talk with Tom Chantry at
19 all in mid December of 2000 when he was back at the
20 church council; did you have any contact with him? 09:51AM

21 A What time frame is this we're talking about

22 now?
23 Q When the church council was convened and Tom
24 came from Washington state back to Arizona for that
25 purpose, did you have any contact with Tom over that 09:51AM
 Page 58

1 three or four-day period?

2 A No. He never came back to Prescott.
3 Q Were you aware that he was in Arizona, though?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Okay, but you didn't talk to him on the phone, 09:51AM

6 e-mail, go see him in Phoenix?

7 A No.
8 Q No contact?
9 A Well, except at the end when we met in
10 Phoenix. 09:51AM

11 Q When it was all coming to a conclusion?

12 A Right, when he signed the document.
13 Q One last question, Mr. Owens, about this: In
14 2000 when these allegations from other families
15 other than D L and C S L 's 09:52AM

16 allegations had come forward, were you aware of any

17 conversations that took place between the members of
18 those families; did you have any communications
19 between the J s and the W s, for example,
20 about any of this? 09:52AM

21 A No.
22 Q Did it involve you at all?
23 A No.
24 Q If they had had communication, you just
25 wouldn't have known about it because you weren't 09:52AM
 Page 59

1 there?
2 A Correct.
3 MR. SEARS: Nothing further.
4 THE COURT: Redirect?
5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MS. EAZER:
7 Q Do you have any reason to believe that any of
8 the families were communicating back in 2000 about
9 what each of the children may or may not have been
10 saying at that time? 09:52AM

11 A No, no.
12 Q Based on your contact with the families and
13 your involvement in this back then, was this
14 something the families seemed like they were excited
15 to talk about or were sharing with, you know, lots 09:53AM

16 of people at the church?

17 A Absolutely not.
18 Q And did it appear to you quite the opposite?
19 A It did.
20 Q These families private? 09:53AM

21 A Yes.
22 Q Within your congregation back in 1995 to 2000,
23 just so people can have an idea, I mean, there's
24 some churches that are very liberal and have
25 discussions about sexual education, sexual 09:53AM
 Page 60

1 awareness, things of that nature. Was that the way

2 Miller Valley was back in 1995 to 2000?
3 A No. That's never occurred.
4 Q I'm going to go backwards from the last
5 questions forward just to touch on a couple of 09:53AM

6 things he asked you about. Mr. Sears was asking if

7 you were -- about the meeting with H E
8 in 2015 and whether the incidents at Miller Valley
9 in -- from 1995 to 2000 came up in that meeting.
10 Let me ask you, do you recall somebody, either 09:54AM

11 yourself or Chris, saying that Miller Valley would

12 get the documents from that informal church
13 investigation to the police as well?
14 A No.
15 Q You don't remember somebody, Chris, saying 09:54AM

16 that he was going to make sure to provide the police

17 department after H and J reported what had
18 happened to J , make sure that the police
19 department had knowledge of what happened back in
20 1995 to 2000? 09:54AM

21 A One of them may have done that.

22 Q Okay. In fact, that occurred, correct,
23 shortly afterwards?
24 A Yes, but I don't know what precipitated that.
25 Q Okay, and just to be clear, as far as 09:54AM
 Page 61

1 discussions that occurred at that meeting, was part

2 of the reason to your knowledge that you all were
3 invited to that meeting was to I guess make sure you
4 knew that it was likely going to come out about what
5 happened in 1995 to 2000 based on the new 09:55AM

6 allegations?
7 A That it was likely to come out?
8 Q Yeah, that that information was going to need
9 to be shared with the police as well?
10 A Oh, yeah, yes, absolutely. It was all 09:55AM

11 connected.
12 Q So there was some discussion about what
13 happened back in --
14 A Yeah.
15 Q Now, Mr. Sears was asking you some questions 09:55AM

16 about the position you took in 1995 -- or I'm sorry.

17 I keep getting my years mixed up. In 2015 when you
18 learned Thomas Chantry had applied to have his
19 church join ARBCA and your objection because he had
20 not complied, and Mr. Sears used the term 09:55AM

21 recommendations a couple of times. Was that the way

22 it was framed in the document, that there were
23 certain recommendations for all the parties
24 involved?
25 A There were. 09:56AM
 Page 62

1 Q Okay, and to be specific, when we're talking

2 about No. 8 -- there's a number of recommendations
3 for everybody, Thomas Chantry, the elders, the
4 parents; correct?
5 A Correct. 09:56AM

6 Q And with respect to No. 8, did it specifically

7 recommend that he endeavor to seek full repentance
8 and forgiveness for each of the four children and
9 their parents who have been the subject of physical
10 discipline from him and it's recommended that the 09:56AM

11 elders, who assume oversight of Thomas Chantry,

12 assist him with the process?
13 A Correct.
14 Q So the repentance and forgiveness aren't just
15 your words; that was the words of the council and 09:57AM

16 the recommendations; correct?

17 A Yes.
18 Q And as far as why you took particular
19 exception with that having not occurred in your
20 opinion, did everybody sign that document at the end 09:57AM

21 of this investigation?
22 A Yes, signed and witnessed, yeah.
23 Q And in signing it, did everybody agree that
24 they were going to abide by the recommendations?
25 A Yes. 09:57AM
 Page 63

1 Q All right. Now, you run a business you told

2 us?
3 A Uh-huh.
4 Q The recommendations -- even though it uses the
5 word recommendations, did it kind of have language 09:57AM

6 like a contractual agreement that everybody was

7 going to abide by what was in the document?
8 MR. SEARS: Relevance, beyond the scope of
9 this witness.
10 THE COURT: Sustained. 09:57AM

11 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Sir, when you got upset about

12 what happened in 2015 -- and I just want the jury to
13 understand because Mr. Sears was asking you about,
14 well, you know, apology versus repentance. Is there
15 a difference in your mind? 09:58AM

16 A Absolutely.
17 Q And specifically -- and I don't want to get
18 into the whole, you know, belief system of Miller
19 Valley or Reformed Baptists, but is there a
20 difference between repentance and asking forgiveness 09:58AM

21 and apologizing?
22 A Oh, absolutely, yes.
23 Q All right. Forgiveness a big part of Reformed
24 Baptism -- Baptists?
25 A Yes. 09:58AM
 Page 64

1 Q Repentance, a big part?

2 A Yes.
3 Q When I say a big part, I mean is that
4 something that is taught in that religion and kind
5 of is it something that the members live by in their 09:58AM

6 daily lives?
7 A Absolutely.
8 Q We heard a lot about various parents -- a lot
9 from various parents who came into court when things
10 had happened between 1995 and 2000, about them 09:59AM

11 forgiving Tom Chantry and moving on after some of

12 the initial incidents occurred.
13 A Uh-huh.
14 Q Again, consistent with the teachings of the
15 church? 09:59AM

16 A Yes, yes.
17 Q Now, in 2015 when there was an objection to
18 Tom bringing his church into ARBCA, let me ask you,
19 did you do anything other than voice that objection
20 either by way of through writings or letters with 09:59AM

21 Chris Marley to ARBCA or I think you said -- you

22 maybe mentioned something at the meeting that took
23 place, the general assembly meeting, there was some
24 discussion maybe at that time?
25 A Maybe I don't understand. Is this the meeting 10:00AM
 Page 65

1 among elders in the church or is this the --

2 Q April of 2015 general assembly meeting. You
3 said there was some discussion that you were voicing
4 an objection to him joining ARBCA.
5 A Yes. 10:00AM

6 Q Do you remember when Mr. Sears was asking you

7 about that?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Aside from those discussions and perhaps a
10 letter or letters that was written to ARBCA stating 10:00AM

11 Miller Valley's objections, did you make calls like

12 to the families of the children that had some --
13 that were involved in the incidents from 1995 to
14 2000 and tell them, hey, you need to come forward
15 and make some police reports because we need to keep 10:00AM

16 Tom and his church from joining ARBCA?

17 A No, no.
18 Q At any time did you speak to the families and
19 suggest they call the police or make a report?
20 A No. 10:01AM

21 Q Mr. Sears asked you about D L and

22 whether there was reports that he had bruises.
23 C L described some pretty significant
24 bruising and injuries; correct, sir?
25 A Yes. 10:01AM
 Page 66

1 Q Was it your understanding -- Mr. Sears asked

2 you if you ever saw them. Was it your understanding
3 that those had been seen or had occurred some weeks
4 before the report was made to you?
5 A Correct. 10:01AM

6 Q Do you recall Mr. Sears was asking you how it

7 was that other parents came forward after the D
8 L abuse incident came to light? Do you
9 remember there being an announcement to the
10 congregation on November 8th about the absence of 10:01AM

11 why Tom wasn't going to be there to -- any longer

12 actually, I guess?
13 A There was the announcement on the 8th that he
14 had resigned.
15 Q Okay, and do you recall at that announcement 10:02AM

16 during that session that Rich in fact told the

17 congregation or the folks that were at that special
18 meeting on the 8th where his resignation was
19 announced, that it involved some issues of
20 inappropriate discipline of children or a child? 10:02AM

21 A That -- I don't know if that came up or not in

22 that meeting.
23 Q If the minutes prepared I guess by Rich
24 indicate that it did, any reason to disagree with
25 that? 10:02AM
 Page 67

1 A No, no reason to disagree.

2 Q All right, and do you know if it's after that
3 announcement is made that others came forward?
4 A Yes, after that others evidently did come
5 forward. 10:03AM

6 Q Okay, and specifically T and P W

7 came forward?
8 A Yes, yeah.
9 Q Now, Mr. Sears asked you about the meeting
10 that you had with the defendant. Now, you're 10:03AM

11 understandably a little fuzzy about dates when

12 certain things happened as you sit here today.
13 A Uh-huh.
14 Q How clear is that meeting you had with the
15 defendant after you learned about D L ; how 10:03AM

16 clear is that in your memory?

17 A It's as clear as if it happened yesterday.
18 Q All right, and do you have any question in
19 your mind about the things you have told the jury
20 that Tom said to you that day? 10:03AM

21 A None.
22 Q And I think I neglected to ask you, but did
23 you see the boat oar that day?
24 A Yes.
25 MR. SEARS: Objection, beyond the scope. 10:04AM
 Page 68

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Sir, the words that you told
3 this jury about what he said, are you certain as you
4 sit here today he talked about children?
5 A Yes. 10:04AM

6 Q As opposed to a child?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And that he did not think he could recover
9 from this?
10 A Correct. 10:04AM

11 Q That he had taken it too far?

12 A Correct.
13 Q You likewise testified that when you took Tom
14 to C L 's house, that he -- Mr. Sears was
15 asking you, did he apologize. Do you remember him 10:04AM

16 apologizing for spanking without permission as you

17 sit here today?
18 A No, he did not.
19 Q All right. Do you recall, as you previously
20 testified, that he was specifically confronted with 10:04AM

21 whether he had spanked D L bare bottomed

22 and that he specifically denied that?
23 A He did.
24 Q Any question in your mind as you sit here
25 today that he denied that? 10:05AM
 Page 69

1 A No, no question.
2 Q As far as your understanding of mandatory
3 reporting and what it is, what the duty is for
4 someone that is an elder or member of the clergy to
5 report things, had you known that that day, might 10:05AM

6 you have called the police back then in 2000?

7 MR. SEARS: Speculation.
8 A Immediately --
9 THE COURT: Hang on one second. Sustained.
10 MS. EAZER: Thank you. 10:05AM

11 MR. SEARS: Move to strike.

12 THE COURT: I'll strike the answer that the
13 witness gave to the question that I sustained the
14 objection to. It's ordered that that answer is
15 stricken from the record. 10:05AM

16 Any questions from the jury for this witness?

17 All right. I see none. May this witness be
18 excused?
19 MR. SEARS: Yes, Your Honor.
20 MS. EAZER: Yes, Your Honor. 10:06AM

21 THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you

22 for your time. Go ahead and call your next witness,
23 please.
24 MS. EAZER: State calls Pastor Christopher
25 Marley. 10:06AM
 Page 70

1 THE COURT: If you wouldn't mind coming to

2 the podium here in the middle of the courtroom and
3 stand by the microphone so we can hear you. Turn to
4 the clerk and she'll swear you in. Thank you.
5 THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm 10:06AM

6 upon penalty of perjury that the testimony you are

7 about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and
8 nothing but the truth, so help you God?
9 MR. MARLEY: I do.
10 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. If you don't 10:07AM

11 mind coming over here and having a seat in this

12 chair. Make sure the microphone is in front of you
13 and close to you and speak into it so we can make
14 sure we all hear you.
15 MR. MARLEY: Will this work? 10:07AM

16 THE COURT: That's great. Thank you. Go

17 ahead, Miss Eazer.
18 CHRISTOPHER J. MARLEY
19 having first been duly sworn to testify the truth,
20 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, testified
21 as follows:
22 DIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY MS. EAZER:
24 Q Good morning, sir. Can you please introduce
25 yourself to the jury? 10:07AM
 Page 71

1 A Hi. I'm Pastor Chris J. Marley of Miller

2 Valley Baptist Church.
3 Q Sir, do you live in Prescott?
4 A I live in Chino Valley.
5 Q All right, and do you have a family? 10:07AM

6 A I do.
7 Q Can you tell us -- you have a wife I'm
8 assuming?
9 A Wife that I don't deserve and three beautiful
10 children. 10:07AM

11 Q How old are your kids?

12 A Seven, five and one and a half.
13 Q All right. Keep you busy I imagine?
14 A That's why I look tired.
15 Q Now, sir, you said you are the pastor of 10:08AM

16 Miller Valley Baptist Church; is that correct?

17 A That is correct.
18 Q And how long have you been the pastor with
19 Miller Valley?
20 A About nine years. 10:08AM

21 Q All right. We've heard throughout the course

22 of this case that there are two Christopher Marleys.
23 Who is the other Christopher Marley?
24 A That would be Chris L. Marley who is my father
25 and oddly enough my associate pastor. 10:08AM
 Page 72

1 Q So you are the senior pastor?

2 A Yes.
3 Q And dad is the associate?
4 A Yes.
5 Q All right. How long has your father been a 10:08AM

6 pastor with Miller Valley Baptist?

7 A That would be approximately fourteen years.
8 Q Now, I don't mean to get personal, but how old
9 are you?
10 A 33. 10:08AM

11 Q So when we look back to some of the events

12 that have been testified to in this case that
13 occurred in 1995 to 2000, safe to say you weren't
14 the pastor back then?
15 A Correct. I wasn't legally allowed to drive. 10:08AM

16 Q Okay. Did you attend Miller Valley Baptist

17 Church back then?
18 A No.
19 Q Now, after becoming the pastor at Miller
20 Valley, did you become aware of some incidents that 10:09AM

21 had occurred back in 1995 to 2000?

22 A After a few years, yes.
23 Q All right, and specifically I'm speaking of
24 incidents involving a person by the name of Thomas
25 Chantry. 10:09AM
 Page 73

1 A Yes.
2 Q And I'm sorry, when did you say you think you
3 became aware of them?
4 A I'm not entirely certain but somewhere between
5 2011 and 2013. 10:09AM

6 Q All right, and without talking about what

7 anybody may have said to you, in what context did
8 you become aware of these documents?
9 A I'm not sure I understand the question.
10 Q It wasn't a very good question. Do you 10:09AM

11 remember why it is that the documents came up, just

12 in general?
13 A Someone had -- a pastor had asked if it would
14 be possible to let bygones be bygones as far as some
15 tension that existed between Miller Valley and 10:10AM

16 Thomas Chantry, and so because of that, I asked my

17 co-elders, Eric Owens and Shorty or Eric Owens and
18 Rich Howe, about the circumstance and that was when
19 they gave me a packet of information.
20 Q Okay. So, again, I'm not going to get into 10:10AM

21 discussions but a pastor from another church --

22 A Correct.
23 Q -- contacts you specifically about Thomas
24 Chantry?
25 A Correct. 10:10AM
 Page 74

1 Q And something about letting bygones be

2 bygones, and had you heard about Thomas Chantry
3 prior to that to your knowledge?
4 A Well, I met Tom when I was a kid briefly and I
5 was aware that he had pastored there before. 10:10AM

6 Q Okay. Prior to this first coming up where you

7 actually looked at some documents or became aware of
8 some documents, had you -- were you aware of the
9 allegations that had occurred in 1995 to 2000?
10 A No. 10:11AM

11 Q All right. So after this conversation, you

12 speak to your -- the church's elders, Rich and Eric;
13 is that correct?
14 A Uh-huh.
15 Q And as a result, you were given some 10:11AM

16 documents?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Okay, and included in those documents were --
19 were there letters from some family members of
20 children that attended the church back in 1995 to 10:11AM

21 2000?
22 A Yes. There were -- sorry.
23 Q And specifically did the packet contain
24 letters from L and L J ?
25 A Yes. 10:11AM
 Page 75

1 Q T and P W ?
2 A Yes.
3 Q M J ?
4 A Yes.
5 Q C L ? 10:11AM

6 A I'm unsure of that one.

7 Q Okay. If we referenced it before in this
8 trial, any reason to believe there wasn't a letter
9 from C there?
10 A I would assume it's in there. 10:12AM

11 Q Okay, and also did it contain I guess a report

12 that dealt with certain recommendations that an
13 informal council had made to Thomas Chantry, the
14 parents, the elders and so forth?
15 A Correct. 10:12AM

16 Q Okay. Now, after you reviewed the documents

17 -- and I'm sorry, tell me again. When do you think
18 that occurred as best you can recall?
19 A If I had to guess, I would say 2012.
20 Q Okay, and at that time in 2012 did you become 10:12AM

21 aware either prior to or after reviewing the

22 documents that Thomas Chantry was pastoring a
23 church?
24 A I think that was when I found out he was
25 pastoring, yes. 10:12AM
 Page 76

1 Q Now, to be clear, we've had testimony from

2 other witnesses about Thomas Chantry applying for
3 his church in Wisconsin to become a member of ARBCA.
4 Was that in 2012?
5 A No. 10:13AM

6 Q All right. So after you reviewed these

7 documents, did you do anything right away as a
8 result of your review of the documents?
9 A The pastor had asked me about it, John
10 Giarizzo. I spoke with him and told him that to my 10:13AM

11 understanding the way about accomplishing

12 reconciliation and letting bygones be bygones, so to
13 speak, was to have Tom speak with the families that
14 he had sinned against.
15 Q Okay. All right. Now, so let me ask you, as 10:13AM

16 early as 2012, and we're not going to get into all

17 the stuff that is in the documents or in the
18 recommendations, but in particular we've heard some
19 testimony about Recommendation No. 8 and so the jury
20 is aware of what Recommendation No. 8 was. To your 10:13AM

21 understanding in 2012, did you have any knowledge

22 that Thomas Chantry had confessed and asked for
23 forgiveness to any of the families of the children
24 involved in the incidents back in 1995 to 2000?
25 MR. SEARS: Foundation, relevance. 10:14AM
 Page 77

1 THE COURT: Sustained.

2 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Let me ask you, sir, did
3 you -- you said that you told this person, John
4 Giarizzo, that as far as letting this matter go,
5 that's -- you believed that it was necessary for the 10:14AM

6 defendant to do what was set forth in Recommendation

7 No. 8; correct?
8 A Correct.
9 MR. SEARS: Asked and answered.
10 THE COURT: Overruled. 10:14AM

11 Q (By Ms. Eazer) All right, and did there come

12 a time in 2015 where this matter came up again?
13 A Correct.
14 Q All right, and specifically at some point, and
15 I'm not going to ask you about who said what, but at 10:14AM

16 some point in 2015 did you learn that the defendant

17 was applying for membership to ARBCA for his church?
18 A At that point I didn't know -- in 2015 he
19 showed up at a GA.
20 Q Okay, and a GA is? 10:15AM

21 A General assembly. That's when all the

22 churches come together.
23 Q All right, and is that specifically churches
24 belonging to ARBCA?
25 A Yes, but there are visitors as well. 10:15AM
 Page 78

1 Q All right, and to your knowledge was he there

2 as a visitor or a member?
3 A At that point he was a visitor.
4 Q Okay. Now, at some point from that point on
5 did you learn that he was making or applying to 10:15AM

6 bring his church into ARBCA?

7 A Yes.
8 Q All right, and did you at some point voice an
9 objection to this?
10 A Yes. 10:15AM

11 Q All right, and did you at some point write a

12 letter to the administrative council of ARBCA
13 objecting to this?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And as we discussed with respect to when this 10:15AM

16 first came up in 2012, was the primary reason

17 because you believed he had not complied with
18 Recommendation No. 8?
19 A Correct.
20 Q All right, and did you state that in your 10:16AM

21 written letter?
22 A Yes.
23 Q All right. Now, was Miller Valley a member of
24 ARBCA at that time?
25 A Yes. 10:16AM
 Page 79

1 Q Tell the jury just -- again, I don't want to

2 get into a whole bunch of background or philosophy
3 or so forth, but what does membership, what does
4 that mean to a Reformed Baptist Church?
5 A It means being part of something much greater 10:16AM

6 than ourselves and allowing a little church like

7 Miller Valley to be able to send missionaries
8 abroad, to educate pastors, like I said, to be a
9 part of bigger work that God is accomplishing.
10 Q All right, and was that important to you? 10:17AM

11 A Incredibly so.
12 Q All right. Now, when you learned that the
13 defendant was applying for membership, aside from
14 writing the letter, did you take any steps to create
15 or bring back an investigation of the incidents that 10:17AM

16 had occurred in 1995 to 2000?

17 A No, ma'am.
18 Q Did you make any calls to any families of
19 those children from back in 1995 to 2000 suggesting
20 that they call the police and make a report? 10:17AM

21 A I spoke to one church member.

22 Q And who was that?
23 A T W .
24 Q And what was the purpose in speaking with
25 T W ? 10:17AM
 Page 80

1 A To ensure that I was right, that Point No. 8

2 in that list of recommendations had not been
3 fulfilled.
4 Q Okay. So specifically did you ask him if the
5 defendant had ever come back and spoken to him or 10:18AM

6 his family?
7 A Correct.
8 Q All right, and that was just to verify before
9 you wrote a letter; is that safe to say?
10 A Yes. 10:18AM

11 Q Now, did you when you spoke to T W

12 say, hey, you know, Tom is getting ready to have his
13 church join ARBCA, you need to maybe call the police
14 and make a report about what happened to your kids
15 back in 1999? 10:18AM

16 A No, ma'am.
17 Q Did you suggest that or infer that at all?
18 A No.
19 Q All right, and, likewise, you didn't reach out
20 to any of the other families; is that correct? 10:18AM

21 A Correct.
22 Q Now, in 2015 when this matter came up, were
23 H E and P E members of Miller
24 Valley?
25 A No, ma'am. 10:18AM
 Page 81

1 Q How about J Ed ?
2 A No.
3 Q Did you even know them?
4 A I had met P a handful of times.
5 Q In what kind of a context? 10:18AM

6 A He would work on the computers at the church.

7 Q Did you have a social relationship with P ?
8 A No.
9 Q All right. When all this came up in 2015, did
10 you ever have discussions with P about, hey, you 10:19AM

11 know, when Chantry is trying to get into ARBCA and

12 voice your concerns to him?
13 A No.
14 Q All right. In 2015 were L and L J
15 members of Miller Valley? 10:19AM

16 A No.
17 Q How about M J ?
18 A No.
19 Q M J ?
20 A No. 10:19AM

21 Q Did you know the J s?

22 A Yes.
23 Q How did you know the J s?
24 A Mostly from childhood.
25 Q And you would have been about the same age as 10:19AM
 Page 82

1 M or M ?
2 A M . M and I were friends as kids.
3 Q Okay. How about in 2015, did you have any
4 contact with these folks?
5 A I had M 's phone number. 10:19AM

6 Q Did you ever reach out to them to let them

7 know he was applying to bring his church into ARBCA?
8 A Prior to the accusations?
9 Q Yes.
10 A No. 10:20AM

11 Q All right. Now, with T and P , were

12 they still members of Miller Valley at the time you
13 were objecting to or writing your concerns,
14 expressing your concerns to ARBCA about the
15 defendant bringing his church into ARBCA? 10:20AM

16 A Yes.
17 Q All right. Now, let me ask you, at some point
18 was the defendant or his church -- was the
19 membership into ARBCA granted?
20 A When was it granted? 10:20AM

21 Q Was it?
22 A Yes.
23 Q All right. Do you know when that occurred?
24 A Spring of 2016.
25 Q All right. After the police report had been 10:20AM
 Page 83

1 filed in this case?

2 A Correct.
3 Q Once the police report had been made in this
4 case, and I'm going to ask you a little bit about
5 the meeting at J E ' house and so forth in 10:21AM

6 just a moment, but once the police report had been

7 filed in this case -- let me just come right out and
8 ask you. Did that have anything to do -- the police
9 report filed by J E , did that have anything
10 or any connection to your knowledge with your 10:21AM

11 opposition to his church getting into ARBCA?

12 A No, no connection.
13 Q All right. Once an investigation began, did
14 police contact you or did you contact the police in
15 2015? 10:21AM

16 A After I was aware there was a report made, as

17 I asked P to tell me, I went in to speak to the
18 police officer.
19 Q All right, and did you provide the police
20 officer with the documents that Miller Valley had on 10:21AM

21 file from the 1995 to 2000 investigation?

22 A Correct. I gave it to Detective Bernard.
23 Q All right, and after that investigation began,
24 did you at some point notify ARBCA about a pending
25 investigation? 10:22AM
 Page 84

1 A Yes.
2 Q All right. After the defendant's church was
3 granted admission or membership into ARBCA, did you
4 do something with respect to your church?
5 A I met once more with the membership committee 10:22AM

6 where they gave me an explanation of why they did

7 what they did, and we sent in a letter of
8 resignation as a church to resign from the
9 association.
10 Q Okay. Now, I don't want to get into a lot of 10:22AM

11 detail, but did your resignation from the

12 association -- did it involve primarily again the
13 reason you were objecting to the defendant bringing
14 his church into ARBCA, again, that he had not yet
15 done what was required of him in Recommendation No. 10:23AM

16 8?
17 A Correct.
18 Q All right, and I'm trying to think of the best
19 way to phrase this. I don't want to get into
20 personal opinions or anything of that nature, but 10:23AM

21 did you, as a pastor of your church, feel that there

22 was a conflict between, you know, with you being a
23 member of ARBCA and with the defendant being a
24 member of ARBCA?
25 A Correct, because he had not accomplished 10:23AM
 Page 85

1 reconciliation, because he had not fulfilled the

2 requirements of a document he signed and, therefore,
3 we did not feel he was fit to be a pastor. We
4 objected and ultimately had to leave our
5 association. 10:23AM

6 Q Is that something that was easy for you to do?

7 A Not in the least.
8 Q You still remain friends with many members of
9 ARBCA?
10 A Correct. 10:23AM

11 Q All right, and you still maintain a

12 professional relationship with many of the members
13 of ARBCA?
14 A Correct.
15 Q Did you withdraw to get revenge or make a 10:24AM

16 specific statement against Thomas Chantry?

17 A No.
18 Q You were -- we've heard testimony that you
19 were part of a meeting that occurred at P and
20 H E ' house? 10:24AM

21 A Correct.
22 Q Back in I guess July of 2015; does that sound
23 about right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Do you remember how you first became aware 10:24AM
 Page 86

1 that J E had come forward and made some

2 type of an allegation?
3 A After a church service Rich Howe pulled me
4 aside and informed me that the E had contacted
5 Robert Selph who had contacted Rich Howe and told 10:24AM

6 him that he had made allegations of being molested

7 by Tom Chantry.
8 Q Okay. So just to be clear, that -- your
9 knowledge about that allegation being made by J
10 E , does that come after you have written a 10:25AM

11 letter to ARBCA about the defendant?

12 A No.
13 Q All right. That came before?
14 A Correct.
15 Q All right. Prior to your learning through 10:25AM

16 Rich who learned through Bob about the allegation,

17 had you had any conversations with P or H
18 E about anything relating to Thomas Chantry?
19 A Not that I recall.
20 Q All right. Is that something you likely would 10:25AM

21 recall if you were communicating with them about

22 Thomas Chantry before their son came forward with
23 molest allegations?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Pretty clear in your mind you hadn't had any 10:25AM
 Page 87

1 communications about Thomas Chantry with the E

2 beforehand?
3 A Yes.
4 Q All right. Let me just ask you, aside from
5 your own personal concerns and your having had a 10:25AM

6 couple of conversations with ARBCA folks about Tom

7 and the -- well, in 2012 to 2015, was Thomas Chantry
8 a big conversation topic at Miller Valley Baptist
9 Church?
10 A Not really. Most of us don't know him. 10:26AM

11 Q And was it something you were preaching about

12 back in 2012 to 2015 to your congregation about, you
13 know, the perils of Thomas Chantry?
14 A No. I preach just from the Bible.
15 Q Now, after you -- well, when you -- after you 10:26AM

16 learned about this allegation, did you get invited

17 to a meeting at P and H E ' home?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Did you attend?
20 A Yes. 10:26AM

21 Q At that meeting, again, not getting into

22 specifics of what people may have said, but did you
23 learn what J was reporting?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Without talking about what J said, did you 10:26AM
 Page 88

1 get a sense of whether -- what was J 's demeanor?

2 A Somber.
3 Q Did it seem like this was difficult for him to
4 talk about?
5 A Very much so. 10:27AM

6 Q Now, during that same meeting, was there some

7 conversation about the things that had occurred back
8 in 1995 to 2000?
9 A Yes.
10 Q All right, and do you recall whether in 10:27AM

11 general the topic -- well, what had happened in

12 general was discussed as far as there were
13 paddlings, some paddlings of some kids being
14 tutored?
15 A I only remember vague references. 10:27AM

16 Q Okay. Was there discussions about kids having

17 been tutored that were alleged to have been paddled
18 by the defendant?
19 A I believe so.
20 Q Okay, and at that meeting was it -- if not 10:27AM

21 discussed, was it I guess pretty much known to

22 everybody that once J made a report, that the
23 stuff made in 1995 to 2000 was going to probably
24 need to be reported as well?
25 A Correct. 10:28AM
 Page 89

1 Q Was everybody in agreement on that?

2 A Yes.
3 Q Did you ever try and hide the fact that
4 something had happened at Miller Valley back in 1995
5 to 2000? 10:28AM

6 A No. As soon as there was a case report, I

7 went immediately.
8 Q Okay, and did you provide the detective as
9 much information as you could, given the fact that
10 you weren't even at the church at that time? 10:28AM

11 A I gave her all the documentation I had and

12 spoke through all of it with her.
13 Q Okay. All right. Now, let me ask you, this
14 has been going on now -- this investigation in the
15 criminal case has been going on since mid 2015. 10:28AM

16 Sir, have you ever engaged in group discussions with

17 the family members of these kids about this case?
18 A No.
19 Q Any family members suing the church or ARBCA
20 to your knowledge? 10:28AM

21 A No.
22 Q All right. So this isn't like a big civil
23 suit like we read about in the news with a lot of
24 celebrity outcries?
25 A No. 10:29AM
 Page 90

1 Q Have you ever personally or to your knowledge

2 has anybody from Miller Valley encouraged or tried
3 to influence any of the family members in this case
4 to make claims against the defendant so that he
5 won't be able to be a member of ARBCA? 10:29AM

6 A No.
7 Q Are the two things completely kind of
8 unrelated as far as this criminal case and your
9 belief system with what occurred with ARBCA?
10 A Yes. 10:29AM

11 Q Thank you very much, sir.

12 MS. EAZER: I don't have any further
13 questions.
14 THE COURT: Thank you. Why don't we take
15 our morning recess at this time. We'll take fifteen 10:29AM

16 minutes. Thank you very much. Remember the

17 admonition.
18 (Whereupon, the jury exited the
19 courtroom.)
20 THE COURT: You can step down, sir. 10:30AM

21 Anything we need to address?

22 MR. SEARS: No, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Thank you. See you in fifteen
24 minutes.
25 (Following a short recess at 10:30 10:30AM
 Page 91

1 a.m., proceedings continued on the Record at 10:46

2 a.m.)
3 THE COURT: We'll now begin cross whenever
4 you are ready.
5 CROSS EXAMINATION 10:46AM

6 BY MR. SEARS:
7 Q Good morning, Pastor.
8 A Good morning, sir.
9 Q I'm John Sears. I'm Tom Chantry's lawyer. I
10 don't think we've met before, have we? 10:47AM

11 A We have not, sir.

12 Q I think I know your father, though. This is
13 one of the situations in which your father gave you
14 a different middle name so you are not officially a
15 junior? 10:47AM

16 A Correct.
17 Q Are you the second?
18 A No, I don't think so.
19 Q You're nothing?
20 A Just Chris. 10:47AM

21 Q Just Chris. People call you junior all the

22 time?
23 A Yes.
24 Q I thought so. And tell me again, please, when
25 you became pastor of Miller Valley Baptist Church. 10:47AM
 Page 92

1 A Approximately nine years ago.

2 Q So that would have been in 2009?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Okay, and had you been a pastor any place else
5 before you were called to Miller Valley? 10:47AM

6 A No, sir.
7 Q Had your father been a pastor of Miller Valley
8 at some time?
9 A Yes.
10 Q During what period? 10:47AM

11 A He was senior pastor from 2004 to probably

12 about 2011, 2012, somewhere in there and then he
13 became the associate pastor.
14 Q He also became mayor of Chino Valley somewhere
15 in there? 10:48AM

16 A Unfortunately, yes.
17 Q For him or for people in the valley?
18 A For him.
19 Q And then when he was done with that position,
20 he came back but now he had to be your associate; is 10:48AM

21 that right?
22 A Correct. He remained my associate pastor
23 during that time.
24 Q That must have been a great moment for you --
25 A I enjoy working with him. 10:48AM
 Page 93

1 Q -- to have your dad back.

2 A To have him in the mayor's office, yes.
3 Q So there was a period of time in there when
4 your father was not officially affiliated with
5 Miller Valley Baptist Church as either senior pastor 10:48AM

6 or associate pastor; there was some gap in there?

7 A No.
8 Q He was one or the other?
9 A He was always there.
10 Q Oh, okay. When did you first start going to 10:48AM

11 Miller Valley; when you became pastor?

12 A Correct. I became a member when I was joining
13 as the pastor.
14 Q Did you live in the Prescott-Chino Valley area
15 before 2009? 10:48AM

16 A No.
17 Q Where did you come from?
18 A Concho, Arizona.
19 Q Up in the White Mountains?
20 A Yes. 10:49AM

21 Q And your father, too?

22 A Correct.
23 Q So you moved about when to Prescott?
24 A I moved in 2009.
25 Q Oh, to take the position with Miller Valley? 10:49AM
 Page 94

1 A Correct.
2 Q How did you know M J ?
3 A There was a church family camp that would
4 occur every year. We were able to attend a handful
5 of them, and M and I were the same age so we got 10:49AM

6 to know each other.

7 Q As kids?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q You've remained friends and contact at some
10 level? 10:49AM

11 A Not really. We didn't maintain contact much

12 after that.
13 Q So you don't know his family particularly?
14 A I know them somewhat.
15 Q I'm talking about his own family, his 10:49AM

16 children.
17 A Oh, no, I don't know them.
18 Q You don't know that M J , the current
19 M J ?
20 A I haven't had that privilege. 10:49AM

21 Q Okay, and he doesn't know your family then

22 probably?
23 A No.
24 Q Okay. So did you grow up a Reformed Baptist;
25 is that your background? 10:49AM
 Page 95

1 A Yes.
2 Q That's why you were in Concho of all places?
3 A Those two aren't really related but, yes.
4 Q There's a Reformed Baptist Church in that
5 area? 10:50AM

6 A Correct.
7 Q That's a pretty small and isolated community
8 compared to metropolitan Chino Valley?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Now, I'm really interested in this call you 10:50AM

11 got from a man named John Giarizzo in this case.

12 Did you know John before he called you?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And he is connected to Reformed Baptist
15 Churches how? 10:50AM

16 A He pastors a Reformed Baptist Church in

17 Gilbert, Arizona.
18 Q And when he called you in 2012, is that when
19 you think this call was?
20 A That's my guess. 10:50AM

21 Q So he calls you and the substance of the call

22 is he wants to know if you can help in some sort of
23 reconciliation between Thomas Chantry and Miller
24 Valley Baptist Church to let bygones be bygones; was
25 that his word; is that what he was saying? 10:51AM
 Page 96

1 A I don't remember him using that phrase but

2 yes, that's the idea.
3 Q That's your interpretation of what he was
4 calling about?
5 A That's correct. 10:51AM

6 Q Out of the blue he calls you about Tom

7 Chantry; right?
8 A Correct.
9 Q He never talked to you about Tom Chantry
10 before? 10:51AM

11 A Correct.
12 Q And at that point you didn't have this
13 collection of documents you said you got later about
14 Tom Chantry and all the things that had happened
15 when Tom was pastor between '95 and 2000; you didn't 10:51AM

16 have that information on hand; is that right?

17 A Correct.
18 Q You didn't really have much idea then about
19 what it was that needed to be reconciled?
20 A No, I did not. 10:51AM

21 Q Did you tell John Giarizzo that, you know,

22 interesting idea but help me out here, I don't know
23 what you are talking about?
24 A I said that I would be happy to help reconcile
25 and that I would speak to my co-elders. 10:51AM
 Page 97

1 Q Did John Giarizzo tell you what it was that he

2 thought needed to be reconciled, just yes or no?
3 A No.
4 Q So you are still mostly in the dark; right?
5 A Correct. 10:52AM

6 Q So when you say your co-elders, as I

7 understand it in the Reformed Baptist Church, you,
8 as the pastor, are considered an elder; is that
9 right?
10 A Correct. 10:52AM

11 Q And then you have elder elders who are

12 non-pastor elders; correct?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And in 2012 or thereabouts when you got this
15 call, who were the other elders? 10:52AM

16 A Aside from myself, Chris L. Marley, Eric

17 Owens, Richard Howe.
18 Q So your dad was an elder?
19 A Correct.
20 Q And so you talked to your dad and to Rich and 10:52AM

21 Shorty and said what can you tell me about this;

22 right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q And one of the things they did was to give you
25 a packet of documents that then went into this red 10:52AM
 Page 98

1 binder at the church, is that right, or was it in

2 the red binder when they gave it to you?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Which?
5 A The red binder. 10:53AM

6 Q The red binder?

7 A It was already in the binder.
8 Q And who gave it to you from the three of them?
9 A As I recall, it was Rich Howe.
10 Q And what did he tell you about that document, 10:53AM

11 not the words, but what was his representation about

12 what they were?
13 A He simply handed it to me and said you need to
14 read this and then I went and read it.
15 Q And so you came away with some sense that 10:53AM

16 there had been some issues with Tom back in '95

17 through 2000 when he was pastor and somehow this
18 church council was involved?
19 A Correct.
20 Q And the records you saw were primarily records 10:53AM

21 relating to this church council investigation; is

22 that right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q So when you read it, that was the first time
25 you knew about the allegations and this church 10:53AM
 Page 99

1 council's role in it; correct?

2 A Correct.
3 Q Did you then talk to Shorty and Rich and your
4 dad further about what you had read?
5 A A little. 10:53AM

6 Q Okay. Your dad wouldn't have been at Miller

7 Valley in the period '95 to 2000 either; correct?
8 A Correct.
9 Q He was with you in Concho?
10 A Well, no. 10:54AM

11 Q Someplace before that?

12 A He would have been in Concho. Well, yeah, at
13 that stage we all would have been in Concho.
14 Q You all came as a family from Concho?
15 A No. My parents continued to live in Concho. 10:54AM

16 I went to college in Phoenix and then California.

17 Q Went to the seminary in California?
18 A Correct.
19 Q Westminster?
20 A Correct. 10:54AM

21 Q And so I assume after reading these documents,

22 you had some general sense of what people in the
23 church were saying about what had happened with
24 their children and Tom back in this period when Tom
25 was pastor; right? 10:54AM
 Page 100

1 A Correct.
2 Q And you didn't know all those people; right?
3 A Not all of them.
4 Q For example, the J family, did you know
5 the J family? 10:54AM

6 A I had met them earlier in life.

7 Q Where and under what circumstances?
8 A At the family camps that I mentioned earlier.
9 Q How old were you when you went to these family
10 camps? 10:54AM

11 A Between the ages of seven and thirteen. I'm

12 not real sure.
13 Q Okay. So you met -- that's where you met
14 M ?
15 A Correct. 10:55AM

16 Q Did you meet his brother M ?

17 A Correct.
18 Q And at some point you met his mom and dad?
19 A Correct.
20 Q How about after that, after you passed the age 10:55AM

21 of thirteen and stopped going to those camps; did

22 you have further contact with the J family?
23 A Not until I came to Miller Valley.
24 Q Okay. Did you know that the J s had moved
25 away from Prescott and Miller Valley Baptist Church 10:55AM
 Page 101

1 some time before the year 2000?

2 A I wasn't really aware of any of that until I
3 read the packet.
4 Q Okay, and then that became clear when you read
5 the packet that they were no longer members of 10:55AM

6 Miller Valley by the time 2000 came around; correct?

7 A Correct.
8 Q And how about T W and P W and
9 their kids; do you know them?
10 A Yes. 10:56AM

11 Q How did you know them?

12 A I met them during childhood and when I would
13 visit my parents in Prescott, I got to know them
14 better and, of course, as pastoring.
15 Q They were still members of the church? 10:56AM

16 A Correct.
17 Q Up until fairly recently?
18 A T and P are still technically members.
19 Q Do they come regularly?
20 A No. 10:56AM

21 Q So you get this call from John Giarizzo. You

22 talk to the other elders, including your dad. You
23 get this packet of information. Do you call John
24 Giarizzo back and say, okay, now I understand what
25 this is, what can happen here; did you have more 10:56AM
 Page 102

1 conversations with him?

2 A I had another conversation with him.
3 Q Okay. Did you ever get a sense from John
4 Giarizzo whether there was something that was going
5 on with Thomas Chantry that made this issue suddenly 10:56AM

6 relevant after all these years?

7 A I thought -- I have an opinion, that's all it
8 is, but I had an idea that perhaps Tom was
9 interested in joining ARBCA and so I offered to help
10 facilitate the reconciliation process as best I 10:57AM

11 could, but the way it would have to start would be

12 with him contacting the families.
13 Q Did you learn from John Giarizzo or somebody
14 else that in 2012 Tom was actually back as a pastor
15 of a Reformed Baptist Church someplace? 10:57AM

16 A I found that out around that time.

17 Q How did you find out?
18 A I forget if it was from the elders or from
19 John.
20 Q Dr. Google on the Internet, did you look him 10:57AM

21 up?
22 A No.
23 Q But somebody told you Tom is a pastor again?
24 A Yes.
25 Q So you put two and two together and thought 10:57AM
 Page 103

1 maybe he's a pastor at a non-ARBCA church, somehow

2 thinking that would be a good thing for them to
3 apply; is that right?
4 A Correct.
5 Q At that time back in 2012 you are talking to 10:57AM

6 two of the people that knew firsthand what had

7 happened in 2000, Shorty and Rich; they were there
8 and knew?
9 A Right.
10 Q Your dad knew late in the game and you are 10:58AM

11 reading these documents; right?

12 A He knew as much as I did.
13 Q And did Shorty or Rich say to you back then
14 when you got this information, look, whatever is
15 going on, you know, Tom Chantry has got to make the 10:58AM

16 first move here; he's the one that has to come and
17 repent and seek forgiveness; did they say that back
18 then?
19 A I don't recall.
20 Q Did you tell them that you thought maybe he's 10:58AM

21 just trying to get into ARBCA and, you know, what do

22 you all think of that; did you have a conversation
23 with Rich and Shorty about that?
24 A Not that I recall.
25 Q Let me put it a little more directly. Did 10:58AM
 Page 104

1 either Rich or Shorty back in 2012 or in that

2 general time frame tell you that if Tom Chantry was
3 a pastor again, they thought that was a terrible
4 idea and if he wanted to go into ARBCA, that was a
5 worse idea still? 10:59AM

6 A I remember us talking about the importance of

7 accomplishing reconciliation.
8 Q And they thought that was appropriate; right?
9 A Reconciliation?
10 Q Yes. 10:59AM

11 A Yes.
12 Q We've talked about it a lot here in this trial
13 about how that is -- sounds like a fundamental
14 principle in the Reformed Baptist Church?
15 A Yes. 10:59AM

16 Q And everybody would expect reconciliation, and

17 brotherly love and forgiveness are all virtues;
18 correct?
19 A Sure.
20 Q So that was your thought; well, if that's what 10:59AM

21 this is about, you know, if I can help, I'll be

22 willing to; right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q But was there any pushback from Rich or Shorty
25 to that idea in general back in 2012? They said no, 10:59AM
 Page 105

1 we're not going to do that?

2 A Just clarity that there needed to be
3 repentance and reconciliation.
4 Q Now, you read this binder full of materials.
5 I assume you came away with the understanding that 11:00AM

6 throughout that process, the church council back in

7 2000, Tom was steadfast in denying that he had done
8 anything criminal to these children, that he didn't
9 commit any crime against these children; right?
10 A Correct. 11:00AM

11 Q And I assume you consider yourself a mandatory

12 reporter under Arizona law; right?
13 A I became aware of that when -- after a
14 discussion when the E -- we found out about
15 the E . 11:00AM

16 Q Okay. So that would have been in the first

17 part of July of 2015; right?
18 A Correct.
19 Q So that was news to you up until that point
20 that somehow the law may place an obligation on you 11:00AM

21 as a clergy member to report allegations?

22 A Correct.
23 Q So I assume the fact that you didn't know
24 about that would explain why in 2012, reading these
25 allegations, you didn't feel compelled under the law 11:01AM
 Page 106

1 to go to the police?
2 A Correct.
3 Q Just never crossed your mind; something you
4 didn't understand that you had to do?
5 A Correct. 11:01AM

6 Q Now you agree you do?

7 A Correct.
8 Q And at the end of this second conversation
9 with John Giarizzo, I assume that's the last time
10 you talked to him about this reconciliation process; 11:01AM

11 the first time he called and then you called him

12 back?
13 A I believe so.
14 Q Was there any effort made by you to try and do
15 something to reconcile Tom and the people at Miller 11:01AM

16 Valley?
17 A I felt we left the ball in his court.
18 Q And you looked at this and said it looked to
19 you like Tom had to be the one to make the first
20 move; right? 11:01AM

21 A Correct.
22 Q It was up to the families whether they would
23 accept this, right? Whether they would accept
24 whatever it is he said, the families would be free
25 to say that just doesn't ring true, you're not 11:02AM
 Page 107

1 sincere, we don't think you're fully repentant?

2 A At that stage my only concern was getting to
3 the next step. I wasn't thinking that far ahead.
4 Q Help me out here, Pastor. There are a lot of
5 different words that have been used in this case for 11:02AM

6 what I think is the same idea, apologizing, seeking

7 forgiveness, repenting. Are those in your mind
8 three completely different ideas or are they all
9 saying approximately the same thing?
10 A Repentance and reconciliation is fairly close. 11:02AM

11 Apology is an expression of sorrow. Forgiveness is

12 actual -- reconciliation is actually seeking
13 forgiveness and a declaration of guilt.
14 Q And so was it your sense from reading these
15 records of this church council that the families and 11:02AM

16 the children in particular are saying these things

17 happened to us; right; you understood that's what
18 happened in this church council; they all spoke to
19 the council members?
20 A Correct. 11:03AM

21 Q And they all said what they believed had

22 happened; correct?
23 A Correct.
24 Q And Tom apparently did the same and had a
25 different view about what happened that consisted 11:03AM
 Page 108

1 mostly of him denying the allegations that had been

2 made against him?
3 A I'm uncertain of the question.
4 Q Okay. Well, this church council didn't appear
5 to you to be some sort of a trial like we're in 11:03AM

6 today with a jury and a judge, those sorts of

7 things. It was informal; correct?
8 A Correct.
9 Q It was commissioned by and done under the
10 auspices of ARBCA; the people that were sent here 11:03AM

11 were sent by ARBCA?

12 A Correct.
13 Q They conducted this investigation by talking
14 to the children. You knew that much; right?
15 A Correct. 11:04AM

16 Q They talked to Tom apparently; right?

17 A Correct.
18 Q And then came up with -- the church council
19 came up with the recommendations, what everyone,
20 they thought, ought to be doing in the future going 11:04AM

21 forward?
22 A Which Tom signed and agreed to do.
23 Q Right, right. And that's how it all ended?
24 A Correct.
25 Q And was it your impression from looking at 11:04AM
 Page 109

1 this that even in the agreement, Tom still

2 maintained that he had not done all of the things he
3 was accused of doing; he maintained he was innocent?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Now, explain to me, if you could, then why the 11:04AM

6 people from Miller Valley Baptist Church and perhaps

7 you thought that at some point in order to
8 reconcile, Tom had to come forward and seek
9 forgiveness for things he denied doing. Are you
10 following me? He said I didn't do that. Do you 11:04AM

11 believe that in order for there to be

12 reconciliation, particularly compliance with this
13 agreement, Tom had to somehow come to the families
14 and say I seek your forgiveness for what you say I
15 did? 11:05AM

16 A My understanding of the document was that Tom

17 had to seek out those families after that council
18 and repent and reconcile. The extent of that I
19 can't speak to.
20 Q Can you explain to me, if you can, how a 11:05AM

21 person in Tom's situation could or should repent for

22 something he adamantly said he didn't do; how does
23 that work?
24 A I can't speak to what Tom did or didn't do.
25 All I can tell you is that he promised by signing 11:05AM
 Page 110

1 that document to seek out those people and seek

2 reconciliation, and to my understanding, he never
3 contacted those families. So until we started down
4 that journey, I did not feel I could recognize
5 Thomas Chantry as a pastor and, therefore, opposed 11:06AM

6 his entrance to ARBCA. Does that make sense?

7 Q I understand what you're saying. Let me put
8 it to you another way. Supposing I come up to you
9 at the lunch break and say, you know, you ran into
10 the side of my car in the parking lot and what are 11:06AM

11 you going to do about it, and you say I'm not even
12 parked near you and I didn't run into your car, I
13 don't know what you're talking about, and I said,
14 well, I'll let it go if you just repent and seek
15 forgiveness from me for running into my car, would 11:06AM

16 you ever do that?

17 A I wouldn't have signed a document agreeing to
18 come and seek repentance and reconciliation.
19 Q So you think that signing the document somehow
20 obligated Thomas Chantry? I understand you weren't 11:06AM

21 there. I understand this is all old history to you.

22 Shorty kept saying you were a little kid when this
23 all happened. I don't know if you were a little kid
24 but you were not a pastor; you were not an ordained
25 pastor of the Baptist Church in 2000, we know that; 11:07AM
 Page 111

1 right?
2 A I was not allowed to drive.
3 Q Yeah. That's an easy way to remember it.
4 That would have probably cut into your work, right,
5 if you couldn't drive yourself to work in the 11:07AM

6 morning?
7 A Correct.
8 Q But what I'm saying is in your mind in 2012
9 and apparently in 2015 and '16 when you opposed
10 Tom's application to bring his Wisconsin church into 11:07AM

11 ARBCA, you believed that signing this agreement

12 obligated Tom to essentially apologize or repent or
13 seek forgiveness from people for something that he
14 has never once said he did; is that your
15 interpretation of not only this document but what 11:07AM

16 Tom's duty is as a pastor?

17 A Tom denied the extent and criminality of what
18 he did but he agreed that he had sinned. Does that
19 make sense?
20 Q Yeah, and I think you can look long and hard 11:08AM

21 at the criminal code in Arizona and not find the

22 word sin, just like you can't find Tom Chantry's
23 name in the Bible; right?
24 A Because we were dealing with a church
25 situation. 11:08AM
 Page 112

1 Q Right, and this is a church council?

2 A Right.
3 Q And the reconciliation John Giarizzo was
4 trying to facilitate was a church reconciliation,
5 church members and their former pastor; right?
6 A Correct.
7 Q So everybody could move forward and go on with
8 their lives and get this matter resolved; right?
9 A Right.
10 Q There was no talk, was there, back in 2012 of, 11:08AM

11 well, if this doesn't happen, we're going to have to

12 go to the police?
13 A No.
14 Q The police had not been involved as far as you
15 could see from the documents back in 2000; right? 11:08AM

16 A Correct.
17 Q You saw indications that the families had been
18 told, if you don't like this, you can go to the
19 police?
20 A Correct. 11:08AM

21 Q And they didn't apparently as far as you know?

22 A As far as I knew.
23 Q Now, looking at -- let's see if we can try and
24 stay in the same time frame. Back in 2012 or
25 thereabouts, did this conversation about 11:09AM
 Page 113

1 reconciliation and Tom that you talked first to John

2 Giarizzo about and then to the elders continue for
3 some period of time; did it go on for months or
4 years?
5 A The conversation with John Giarizzo? 11:09AM

6 Q Just the idea of Tom in the abstract

7 reconciling with the Miller Valley people as you say
8 he obligated himself to do.
9 A I think my two conversations with John
10 Giarizzo were perhaps a week apart. 11:09AM

11 Q So this was a matter of some brief attention

12 and it was put aside and nothing was done with it;
13 right?
14 A Correct.
15 Q And was there any discussion between you and 11:09AM

16 your co-elders back in 2012 of why don't we reach

17 out to Tom and see what he says about this, is he
18 willing to do this; was that discussed?
19 A No.
20 Q Well, how was Tom supposed to know that you 11:09AM

21 all here in Prescott at Miller Valley Church were

22 waiting for this to happen if nobody told him you
23 were waiting for him to make the next move?
24 A My assumption was that if Tom wanted to
25 reconcile and get into ARBCA and wanted all of this 11:10AM
 Page 114

1 to be dealt with, that he had contacted John

2 Giarizzo and, therefore, if I informed John Giarizzo
3 that Tom needed to talk to us, then that would take
4 place.
5 Q I see. That's just your assumption. John 11:10AM

6 didn't say that, did he?

7 A Correct.
8 Q So you just let it drop? You didn't hear from
9 Tom? Oh, well, okay, we'll move on to the next
10 thing; right? 11:10AM

11 A Correct.
12 Q And sometime in -- let me see if we can get
13 the sequence. A lot happened it looks like
14 regarding all of these matters in 2015. So you are
15 now into year six of your pastoring at Miller Valley 11:10AM

16 or thereabouts; right?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Your dad is right there with you as the
19 associate; right?
20 A Yes. 11:11AM

21 Q And so he and Shorty and Rich are still the

22 co-elders with you?
23 A Correct.
24 Q And so apparently you went to this general
25 assembly in April of 2015 in Texas; do you remember 11:11AM
 Page 115

1 that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Is that the first general assembly you
4 attended?
5 A No. 11:11AM

6 Q You go on a regular basis before that when you

7 became pastor?
8 A Yes.
9 Q So you've said that membership in ARBCA was a
10 very big deal for you personally and you thought for 11:11AM

11 the church that you pastored; right?

12 A Correct.
13 Q For all the reasons you told us, all the
14 things that are bigger than this very small church
15 here in Prescott? 11:11AM

16 A Correct.
17 Q And do you remember seeing and speaking with a
18 man named Don Lindblad at GA in Texas in April of
19 2015?
20 A Yes. 11:11AM

21 Q You know John -- you know Don?

22 A Yes.
23 Q How do you know him?
24 A We're both pastors in the association.
25 Q Okay, and you know he's been around for a long 11:11AM
 Page 116

1 time?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you remember going to Don Lindblad because
4 you noticed that Tom Chantry was there?
5 A Correct. 11:12AM

6 Q How did you know who Tom Chantry was in April

7 of 2015?
8 A As I said, I met him as a kid.
9 Q Okay. Same place you met the J s?
10 A Correct. 11:12AM

11 Q And he wasn't a camper then, though; right; he

12 was somehow involved in the camp; was he a counselor
13 at the camp?
14 A No. He would have come as the pastor at
15 Miller Valley during that time. 11:12AM

16 Q I see, okay. And so you recognized Tom and

17 you wanted to know what he was doing there; right?
18 A Correct.
19 Q So in your head was wait a minute, you know,
20 we talked about this a few years ago and heard 11:12AM

21 nothing from him and now he shows up at a general

22 assembly; you wanted to know why he was there and
23 what he was doing?
24 A Correct.
25 Q And you were advised that if you had any 11:12AM
 Page 117

1 questions, you should ask Tom why he's there and

2 what he's doing; right?
3 A I was not advised that.
4 Q Did you go up to Tom and say good to see you
5 again, what are you doing here? 11:13AM

6 A I didn't get the opportunity.

7 Q So you didn't?
8 A No, I did not.
9 Q Okay, and did you talk to other people at
10 general assembly about what's Tom doing here? 11:13AM

11 A One other person.

12 Q Who else?
13 A Steve Marquedant, M-A-R-Q-U-E-D-A-N-T.
14 Q And he was an ARBCA official?
15 A Correct. 11:13AM

16 Q What was his role at ARBCA?

17 A He was the head of the membership committee.
18 Q So he would have been the point person for any
19 application Tom made on behalf of his current church
20 for application; it would be funneled through Steve? 11:13AM

21 A Correct.
22 Q And so you asked him the same question, right?
23 As a result of that conversation, did you come away
24 with the impression that if Tom hadn't officially
25 applied, he was in the process of applying? 11:13AM
 Page 118

1 A I was not given that impression, no.

2 Q Was the impression you got that he had already
3 applied?
4 A I was given the impression that Steve
5 Marquedant did not know. 11:14AM

6 Q Oh, okay, and was it your understanding that

7 one of the conditions in applying for membership in
8 ARBCA was the pastor of the applying church had to
9 come to general assembly as a visitor?
10 A Correct. 11:14AM

11 Q So that might explain what Tom was doing here?

12 A Correct.
13 Q So this all sort of connected up in your mind
14 that Tom wouldn't be here unless he was interested
15 and now it all sort of makes sense; what I think in 11:14AM

16 2012 appeared to have been correct about Tom's

17 intentions?
18 A I was unsure.
19 Q And you had in your mind at that time, you
20 know, we weren't satisfied in 2012 as a church at 11:14AM

21 Miller Valley with Tom's performance under the

22 agreement here and we're not now, and unless we get
23 information that he's complied and we just didn't
24 know about it, we don't think this is a good idea;
25 we don't think he should be a pastor in an ARBCA 11:14AM
 Page 119

1 church and we don't think his church ought to be in

2 ARBCA; that was where you were in April of 2015?
3 A Yes.
4 Q And so at some point in June perhaps, maybe
5 two months later, did you become aware from some 11:15AM

6 source that in fact Tom had formally applied to the

7 membership committee at ARBCA to bring his Wisconsin
8 church into the association?
9 A I don't remember when I was specifically
10 informed. 11:15AM

11 Q Well, let's relate it to something else we

12 know about. The meeting at H and P E '
13 house to hear these allegations from her son J
14 and decide what to do was somewhere in the first
15 part of July, somewhere around July 7th, maybe July 11:15AM

16 6th, does that sound about right, 2015?

17 A Sure.
18 Q Okay, and do you think that when you went to
19 that meeting, you already knew that Tom had applied
20 on behalf of his church for membership in ARBCA? 11:15AM

21 A I don't remember if I knew or not.

22 Q Possible?
23 A Sure.
24 Q And so now you have this whole new set of
25 information about Tom and his behavior back during 11:16AM
 Page 120

1 his pastoring from '95 to 2000 in the form of this

2 disclosure by J E ; correct?
3 A Correct.
4 Q So that's got to be troubling to you; right?
5 A Yes. 11:16AM

6 Q You think, well, this church council was all

7 about spanking and spanking without permission and
8 the way things led to spanking. This is a whole
9 other level. Now somebody has talked about being
10 sexually molested; right? 11:16AM

11 A Correct.
12 Q And so at this meeting, my understanding is
13 you went there and Shorty and Rich came as well; is
14 that right?
15 A Correct, and Chris as well. 11:16AM

16 Q And who; your dad?

17 A Yes, the other Chris Marley.
18 Q So there was a foursome representing Miller
19 Valley Church, all three elders and you?
20 A Correct, and the E family and elders 11:17AM

21 from their church.

22 Q And did one of them seem like he might be some
23 sort of associate pastor, an older gentleman nearer
24 my age? The name Dan Rydberg, does that ring a
25 bell? 11:17AM
 Page 121

1 A Vaguely.
2 Q How about a sheriff's deputy; do you remember
3 somebody being introduced --
4 A I remember there being a police officer who
5 was also an elder. 11:17AM

6 Q An elder in their current church. Does the

7 name Cornerstone Church ring a bell?
8 A Yes.
9 Q That's another church in Prescott; right?
10 A Yes. 11:17AM

11 Q You heard of it before?

12 A Yes.
13 Q So your impression was that's maybe the
14 current home church for the E family?
15 A I don't remember if we talked about what 11:17AM

16 church they were going to but, yeah.

17 Q So let's talk about why you and the other
18 people from Miller Valley were present. This is a
19 new allegation and it happened well before your
20 watch, supposedly sometime in the year 2000; right? 11:17AM

21 A Correct.
22 Q But there was talk at this meeting at the
23 E family about other allegations reaching back
24 into this 2000 church council, allegations from
25 other children and their families; right? 11:18AM
 Page 122

1 A Yes.
2 Q So your role as the pastor then of Miller
3 Valley and then the three elders that you brought
4 with you, your dad and Shorty and Rich, was
5 apparently to assist in this investigation that was 11:18AM

6 about to take place by providing information and

7 names and contact information to the police officer
8 about the people that made complaints about Tom back
9 between '95 and 2000; that's why you were there?
10 A You're asking why we were at the E ' 11:18AM

11 home?
12 Q Better question, yes. That now becomes my
13 question it was so well put.
14 A Okay. We were there to express love and
15 support for the E family and to find out what 11:19AM

16 had happened.
17 Q Correct, and you were also the possessor of
18 information -- when I say you, Miller Valley Baptist
19 Church was the possessor of information about this
20 church investigation; you had the red binder; right? 11:19AM

21 A Yeah. I think Rich had it at that point.

22 Q Okay, and I thought he gave it to you.
23 A I'm not sure when I got it.
24 Q Am I mistaken? You didn't get it back in
25 2012? 11:19AM
 Page 123

1 A No. I was allowed to read it in 2012. I

2 don't know if I kept possession of it.
3 Q When you took it to the police officer, where
4 did you retrieve it from?
5 A I took it in to the police officer. Detective 11:19AM

6 Bernard took the binder, Xeroxed every page or I

7 assume every page and brought it back to me, and
8 then we discussed it and then I went home.
9 Q But where did you get it to take to her?
10 A I don't remember if it was in my office or if 11:19AM

11 I went and got it from Rich.

12 Q I see, okay. And so back to this meeting at
13 H and P E ' house, you are there, as
14 you said, to express love and support for J and
15 his family and to be of assistance; right? In 11:20AM

16 particular, H E seemed to know that

17 Miller Valley Baptist Church would have records of
18 this church council; isn't that right?
19 A I don't recall.
20 Q Do you remember H E talking at 11:20AM

21 this meeting at her house with her husband there and

22 her son there about allegations, specifically about
23 her cousin D L and Tom?
24 A I don't recall a specific reference to D .
25 Q How about other children; was there talk by 11:20AM
 Page 124

1 H E of allegations by children back in

2 2000 against Tom?
3 A I remember there was some reference to what
4 had happened during that time period and the
5 informal council. 11:20AM

6 Q Was there some specific suggestion made by

7 H E or the police detective or anyone
8 else that it would be important for Miller Valley to
9 round up whatever records it had regarding the 2000
10 investigation and make sure that the police knew 11:21AM

11 about it?
12 A I don't remember who made that recommendation.
13 Q Was that recommendation made even if you can't
14 remember by whom?
15 A It was made by one of us. Might have been one 11:21AM

16 of the elders.
17 Q Because that's what prompted you to get the
18 red binder for the church council records to make
19 sure it went to the detective; right?
20 A Correct. 11:21AM

21 Q That's what you did?

22 A Right.
23 Q Now, after -- so this is sometime -- there's
24 been a lot of testimony. It seems like this meeting
25 might have happened on July 6th, 2015, and you said 11:21AM
 Page 125

1 that was the time when you heard this discussion

2 among the other people of mandatory reporting and
3 maybe this associate pastor from Cornerstone needed
4 to report. Did that come up in your presence?
5 A The concept of mandatory reporting I learned 11:22AM

6 about on the drive to the E ' home.

7 Q Oh.
8 A And so -- when we sat down with them, as the
9 pastor of Miller Valley, I told -- I encouraged P
10 and his wife and son that they needed to report this 11:22AM

11 and if they did not report it, I was obligated to

12 report it.
13 Q How about this associate pastor who we think
14 is Dan Rydberg; did he also participate and say the
15 same thing, if you don't report, I'm going to have 11:22AM

16 to go to the police because you told me now?

17 A I don't specifically recall that.
18 Q And did you ride over to this meeting with
19 your father and Shorty and Rich?
20 A I rode over with my father. 11:22AM

21 Q And your father passed on this fatherly

22 advice, son, there's something we need to talk about
23 and it's the concept of mandatory reporting?
24 A Correct.
25 Q You were greatly relieved? 11:22AM
 Page 126

1 A There were other conversations. It was a

2 serious thing.
3 Q And so he knew about it; he knew about the
4 concept of mandatory reporting because he told you
5 about it? 11:23AM

6 A Correct.
7 Q And at this meeting was there any other
8 specific action item discussed, for example, that
9 J , with or without his mother, needed to go as
10 soon as possible to the police and tell the same 11:23AM

11 story?
12 A That was all that I remember being an action
13 point. Is that what you're saying?
14 Q Something like that. Meetings happen and
15 there's some decision made that something will be 11:23AM

16 done, sometimes they are called action items or

17 action points. Was there some discussion that
18 that's what needed to happen, that the consensus of
19 this group was that J , with or without his
20 mother, needed to go straight away to the police? 11:23AM

21 A Correct.
22 Q And did you follow up on that to see if that
23 happened?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Who did you follow up with? 11:24AM
 Page 127

1 A I had texting conversations with his father,

2 P .
3 Q Sometime after this meeting?
4 A Correct.
5 Q And from those conversations, did you learn 11:24AM

6 whether J had or had not gone to the police?

7 A Correct.
8 Q Which?
9 A That he had.
10 Q Had? He had gone to the police? 11:24AM

11 A Yes.
12 Q So that took you off the mandatory reporter,
13 right, among other things?
14 A Correct, at which point I then went and spoke
15 to Detective Bernard. 11:24AM

16 Q With the red binder?

17 A Correct.
18 Q And that was the sole purpose of going to see
19 her, we have these documents and we think you'd be
20 interested in these? 11:24AM

21 A We wanted to cooperate.
22 Q Did you explain to Detective Bernard the
23 context as you understood these documents, this is
24 what this is about, these names are people you might
25 want to track down; did you get that far in your 11:24AM
 Page 128

1 conversation with her?

2 A I briefly explained what was in the documents.
3 Q Okay. Did she seem to know about the
4 existence of this church council before you brought
5 her the red binder? 11:25AM

6 A I don't recall.
7 Q Did she tell you what she was going to do with
8 the information you gave her?
9 A No.
10 Q Now, the timing of that meeting in relation to 11:25AM

11 the meeting at the E ' house was when; how long

12 after you went to the E ' house was it that you
13 then went to the police department with the red
14 binder roughly, if you know?
15 A I honestly don't know. 11:25AM

16 Q Days, weeks?
17 A I want to say it was a few days before the
18 E managed to get it reported. I don't
19 remember why. And then after it was reported, I
20 immediately tried to go -- I believe that day tried 11:25AM

21 to contact Detective Bernard and she was out of the

22 office. I don't remember how many times it took
23 before I finally got ahold of her.
24 Q Did you get her name from the E ?
25 A Correct. 11:25AM
 Page 129

1 Q As the person that was going to be

2 investigating this case?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Now, you said when you had this information
5 and you reported it, you felt at that time a 11:26AM

6 criminal investigation had or was about to be

7 launched by the Prescott Police Department into the
8 allegations made by J ; right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q You didn't know at that point whether the 11:26AM

11 investigation was going to be broader and was going

12 to go back and look at allegations from 1995 to
13 2000; you didn't know that yet; right?
14 A Well, the accusation was from that time
15 period. 11:26AM

16 Q I'm sorry. The accusations from other

17 children other than J .
18 A I didn't have an opinion.
19 Q And your information and your impression from
20 hearing the J E ' revelation was that no one 11:26AM

21 came forward on his behalf in 2000 about these

22 allegations because he had just made them in 2015;
23 correct?
24 A That was my understanding.
25 Q Did you talk to J personally about what he 11:26AM
 Page 130

1 was saying, ask him any questions?

2 A Not anything extensive.
3 Q Anything at all?
4 A I don't recall.
5 Q Now, you said, if I understand, that at some 11:27AM

6 point you contacted somebody at ARBCA about this

7 revelation from J E and the police
8 investigation; did I understand that correctly?
9 A Correct.
10 Q When did you do that? 11:27AM

11 A I'm not sure. I know it was after I spoke to

12 Detective Bernard.
13 Q And it would appear that you might have first
14 contacted ARBCA to express officially the objection
15 of Miller Valley Baptist Church to Tom's application 11:27AM

16 in early August of 2015; does that sound right?

17 A Sure.
18 Q Less than a month after you first learned of
19 J E ' allegation; within that same month you
20 contacted ARBCA to say here's what we know? 11:27AM

21 A You're talking about my phone conversation

22 with Steve Marquedant?
23 Q I'm talking about something you wrote, a
24 written objection.
25 A I don't remember when the written objection 11:28AM
 Page 131

1 was.
2 Q You made more than one writing to ARBCA
3 expressing essentially the same thing, that Miller
4 Valley objected to this application because Tom had
5 not performed his obligations under this church 11:28AM

6 council agreement from 2000?

7 A To my memory, we sent one signed letter.
8 Q And that was the entire position officially in
9 writing by Miller Valley Baptist Church regarding
10 Tom's application for membership; it was limited to 11:28AM

11 the details of this recommendation back in 2000;

12 that was the entire basis you gave ARBCA at the time
13 of why you objected; correct?
14 A That's what we expressed in writing.
15 Q And you're saying that you called Steve 11:28AM

16 Marquedant, the head of the membership committee,

17 sometime during the same time period; is that right?
18 A I don't remember when I called him but I
19 called him between the summer of 2015 and the spring
20 of 2016. 11:29AM

21 Q While this application was pending and before

22 the April 2016 general assembly where it would be
23 voted on; correct?
24 A Correct.
25 Q And you are saying here today that you 11:29AM
 Page 132

1 provided information to Steve Marquedant at that

2 point that there was a pending criminal
3 investigation against Tom involving new allegations
4 made very recently about something that happened in
5 2000? 11:29AM

6 A Correct.
7 Q And you told him the details of those
8 allegations, that it involved claims of sexual
9 molestation by Tom at this point?
10 A I did state it was claims of sexual 11:29AM

11 molestation.
12 Q But you never put that in writing?
13 A No.
14 Q And had you been told by Detective Bernard to
15 keep this investigation quiet because it was 11:29AM

16 pending?
17 A Early on we were asked to minimize the number
18 of people we spoke to.
19 Q But you felt compelled to tell the point
20 person at ARBCA dealing with Tom's application about 11:30AM

21 these allegations from J E , you felt that

22 that was appropriate for you to do; you needed to
23 give him that information?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Did you follow up with any details, copies of 11:30AM
 Page 133

1 police reports, any other information about this

2 investigation later, at some later date?
3 A I updated him a couple of times verbally.
4 Q Same thing, called up and that's as the
5 investigation moved along against Tom; right? 11:30AM

6 A Correct.
7 Q Were you kept advised of the status of the
8 investigation by Detective Bernard?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Did she call you; did you call her? 11:30AM

11 A She would call me.

12 Q Okay, and she would tell you what she was
13 doing?
14 A Correct.
15 Q She was telling you that she talked to the 11:30AM

16 children from the 2000 church council investigation;

17 you were aware of that?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And did you ever meet with her again in
20 person? 11:31AM

21 A I don't think so.

22 Q Okay, and did she tell you anything else about
23 the investigation, anything she was trying to do or
24 attempting to do in connection with the
25 investigation? 11:31AM
 Page 134

1 A She told us when she had actually contacted --

2 when Tom Chantry had been contacted by a police
3 officer so that we could then have a small degree
4 more open communication regarding what was going on
5 with the investigation. 11:31AM

6 Q That was sometime in 2016; correct?

7 A Sure.
8 Q Now, did she ever -- she being Detective
9 Bernard who is now Jessica Belling. She got married
10 and changed her name. Did she ever talk with you 11:31AM

11 about doing a confrontation call with Tom? You

12 would be on the phone and try to get Tom to talk
13 about these allegations while she was recording it?
14 A No.
15 Q Do you know if she ever talked to your father 11:32AM

16 about it?
17 A Not that I'm aware of. We tried to contact
18 Tom.
19 Q I'm sorry, what?
20 A We tried to contact Tom. 11:32AM

21 Q Who is we?
22 A Miller Valley.
23 Q Who at Miller Valley?
24 A My associate pastor under my instruction or
25 under my request. 11:32AM
 Page 135

1 Q So meaning your dad?

2 A Correct.
3 Q And you had your dad try to contact Tom?
4 A Correct.
5 Q How did he do that? 11:32AM

6 A Phone call.
7 Q Did he talk to Tom?
8 A No.
9 Q Did Tom return his call?
10 A No. 11:32AM

11 Q Okay. When was that?

12 A Fall of 2015. He finally responded with an
13 e-mail.
14 Q Tom did?
15 A Yes. 11:32AM

16 Q Any follow-up by your father or you to that

17 e-mail?
18 A He expressed that he didn't want to
19 communicate.
20 Q Do you have any reason to think that in the 11:32AM

21 fall of 2015 Tom Chantry knew there was an open

22 police investigation of him in Prescott for the J
23 E and other allegations?
24 A In the fall, not that I'm aware of.
25 Q Now, did you go to general assembly in 2016? 11:32AM
 Page 136

1 A No.
2 Q Did anyone from Miller Valley go that year?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Who went?
5 A I'm sorry? 11:33AM

6 Q Who went?
7 A The other Chris Marley.
8 Q And did he report back to you what had
9 happened?
10 A Yes. 11:33AM

11 Q And did he report back to you that it appeared

12 that Tom's application for membership had been
13 approved?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Prior to that time, between your first 11:33AM

16 communications with ARBCA after the meeting at the

17 E ' house and the general assembly in 2016, in
18 those intervening months there, did you ever
19 communicate to ARBCA in any way, over the phone or
20 e-mail or letter, that Miller Valley was so serious 11:33AM

21 about this that if Tom's application were approved

22 and his church were accepted, that Miller Valley
23 would withdraw, resign?
24 A Yes, that we would feel it would be necessary
25 for us to walk away. 11:33AM
 Page 137

1 Q Did you get any response from ARBCA saying

2 don't do that or hang on, we can work this out?
3 A Yeah. There was a desire to have us remain in
4 while they still brought Thomas Chantry in.
5 Q And you did? 11:34AM

6 A For a short time.

7 Q But then pretty much as soon as you learned
8 from your father that Tom's application had been
9 applied (sic), at some point not long thereafter,
10 Miller Valley resigned; correct? 11:34AM

11 A I think it was a month or two.

12 Q Do you know what day?
13 A No.
14 Q Do you know if it was before the end of July
15 2016? 11:34AM

16 A I remember that we sent in our letter of

17 resignation at the same time -- we sent in our
18 letter of resignation and the only thing time-wise
19 that I can tie it to is shortly after that was when
20 Tom was arrested and then it was shortly after that 11:34AM

21 that our resignation letter was distributed to the

22 member churches.
23 Q And Detective Bernard let you know that he was
24 about to be and eventually arrested; you knew that
25 was coming? 11:35AM
 Page 138

1 A I didn't know how far out it was.

2 Q She told you that that was the plan; they were
3 going to file charges and arrest Tom?
4 A She told me that prior to the GA.
5 Q Really? Back before April? 11:35AM

6 A Correct.
7 Q That's where this was going?
8 A Correct.
9 Q How did you learn that Tom had been arrested?
10 A I don't recall. 11:35AM

11 Q At any point in this period from 2012 until

12 Tom was arrested in July of 2016, did you ever talk
13 to Bob Selph about any aspect of the situation with
14 Tom?
15 A I don't think so. 11:35AM

16 Q Did you ever talk with H E about

17 -- after this meeting at her house about allegations
18 against other children other than J E ?
19 A I don't think she and I talked after that
20 night. 11:36AM

21 Q Did you talk to M J ?

22 A I had one phone conversation with M J
23 but I don't remember when it was.
24 Q Can you be at all helpful; was it in 2015,
25 2016? 11:36AM
 Page 139

1 A It was one of those. I'm sorry. I really

2 don't remember. I'm not trying to be --
3 Q This is not a memory test. I understand
4 these are events from a few years ago, and other
5 things have happened in your life I assume; right? 11:36AM

6 A Right.
7 Q This is not the only thing you've done in the
8 last three years.
9 A Right.
10 Q Now, this conversation with M J , did 11:36AM

11 you call him, did he call you?

12 A If I remember correctly, he called and left a
13 message on the church phone for some reason, and
14 that's one of the things that I do is check the
15 messages and so I called him back and we had a 11:36AM

16 conversation that lasted for I think about half an

17 hour.
18 Q So it was catching up?
19 A Uh-huh.
20 Q You hadn't talked to M in a long time? 11:37AM

21 A Right.
22 Q And in that conversation did you receive the
23 impression that M had been contacted by the
24 Prescott Police Department about the investigation
25 of Tom Chantry? 11:37AM
 Page 140

1 A Yes.
2 Q And did you receive the impression that he
3 actually had spoken with Detective Bernard by the
4 time you talked with him on the phone?
5 A Yes. 11:37AM

6 Q Did he tell you the substance of his

7 conversations with the detective?
8 A I don't think so.
9 Q Did you -- well, looking back at the 2000
10 church council records, there's no allegation 11:37AM

11 anywhere in those records by any of the children or

12 their families of any sexual misconduct; is that
13 correct?
14 MS. EAZER: Objection, Your Honor. May we
15 approach? 11:37AM

16 THE COURT: Please.

17 (Whereupon, the following bench
18 conference was had out of the hearing of the jury.)
19 MS. EAZER: He's now specifically referring
20 to the report from the church, no allegations of 11:38AM

21 sexual misconduct. And, again, I think that's a

22 very, very fine line, especially given the things
23 that were said in the report we know that is there.
24 So he's been doing this already throughout. He
25 keeps saying about the defendant denied everything. 11:38AM
 Page 141

1 That's not in the records, and I plan to address

2 that, but now he's saying there's nothing, no sexual
3 misconduct alleged in these documents. He knows --
4 I think that's, again, giving the impression that
5 the council found that there really wasn't anything 11:38AM

6 other than just some inappropriate spankings.

7 THE COURT: Well, we've been over this
8 before so it's really asked and answered. I'm going
9 to sustain it on that ground.
10 MR. SEARS: I'll move on. 11:38AM

11 (Whereupon, the bench conference was

12 concluded and proceedings continued in the hearing
13 of the jury.)
14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. The
15 objection is sustained. Please continue. 11:38AM

16 Q (By Mr. Sears) In your conversation with M

17 J where he told you he already talked to a
18 police officer, might that have been sometime after
19 the first of the year in 2016?
20 A It's possible. 11:39AM

21 Q It was before the general assembly, though;

22 right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And in your conversation with M J , did
25 you receive information that gave you the impression 11:39AM
 Page 142

1 that M was now contending that he had been

2 sexually molested by Tom; did he go into that much
3 detail with you?
4 A I don't think I knew that at the time.
5 Q Okay. In fact, did M J share with you 11:39AM

6 anything about what he told the police detective

7 about Tom Chantry?
8 A I don't think so.
9 Q Did you question him at all about what he had
10 talked with Detective Bernard about? 11:39AM

11 A No.
12 Q Just the fact that he had talked with her; is
13 that right?
14 A Right.
15 Q Did he ask you to do anything? 11:39AM

16 A No.
17 Q Did he tell you why he contacted you?
18 A Yeah, to let me know that he had been speaking
19 with the police and that --
20 Q I'm sorry, what? 11:40AM

21 A That he had been speaking with the police.

22 Q Thank you.
23 A And, yeah, to just kind of touch base.
24 Q Did you talk to him again at any time after
25 that call about anything related to Thomas Chantry? 11:40AM
 Page 143

1 A Not until after Tom had been arrested.

2 Q And then you talked to him again?
3 A We ran into each other at one of the hearings,
4 the evidentiary hearings or something.
5 Q You were attending court just as an observer? 11:40AM

6 A Yes.
7 Q He was there perhaps to testify?
8 A I think he was there to observe as well.
9 Q And did you talk in any detail about what he
10 was saying currently in this case at that point? 11:40AM

11 A No.
12 Q How are you and what are you doing?
13 A Yeah, and I was wanting to express my support
14 and love as a friend and as a pastor.
15 Q Now, to be clear here, although you had met 11:41AM

16 Tom at youth camp when you were younger, you didn't

17 really know him on any basis; is that fair to say?
18 A Not extensively.
19 Q And you certainly didn't know him and his
20 activities at Miller Valley Baptist Church back in 11:41AM

21 1995 to 2000; you weren't here and didn't have

22 contact with him; correct?
23 A Did I know him -- did I have contact with him
24 during that time period?
25 Q Yeah. 11:41AM
 Page 144

1 A That was when I met him.

2 Q Right, but in terms of his role as a pastor,
3 did you have conversations with him at youth camp
4 about what was going on in his church in Prescott,
5 Arizona? 11:41AM

6 A As far as these allegations?

7 Q About anything.
8 A We talked about scripture. We talked about a
9 few little things but they were very brief
10 conversations. 11:41AM

11 Q He didn't tell you that there were problems

12 with things that were going on?
13 A No.
14 Q That was all news to you until about 2012?
15 A Correct. 11:42AM

16 Q Okay, and everything that you know apparently

17 about these allegations comes from what other people
18 have written or other people have told you as
19 opposed to something you know personally or saw?
20 A Correct. 11:42AM

21 Q And the other people that you've gotten

22 information from are primarily your co-elders at
23 Miller Valley Church, the police detective and other
24 people like M J ; that's the source of your
25 information; right? 11:42AM
 Page 145

1 A Correct.
2 Q You don't have any information that you got
3 from Tom Chantry during that period because you said
4 you haven't talked to him?
5 A Tom Chantry e-mailed us and told us he didn't 11:42AM

6 have a desire to communicate.

7 Q And that was the last word you had from him?
8 A Correct.
9 Q Okay. Apparently you are still of the opinion
10 that one of the problems in this case stems from Tom 11:42AM

11 Chantry's failure to live up to his word and repent

12 and that sort of thing?
13 MS. EAZER: Objection, asked and answered.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q (By Mr. Sears) Has your opinion of Tom 11:43AM

16 Chantry and his suitability as a pastor and the

17 proper disposition of his application at ARBCA
18 changed; has your opinion changed when you started
19 to learn this information from J E ? You
20 had an opinion in 2012. Did it change significantly 11:43AM

21 in one direction when you got new information from

22 J E ?
23 A We did not feel prior to that information that
24 Tom Chantry was -- could be recognized as a pastor,
25 and so that did not change after the accusations 11:43AM
 Page 146

1 from the E .
2 Q Was it the opinion of Miller Valley Baptist
3 Church in 2015 and 2016 when this ARBCA application
4 was pending that Tom was somehow not a Christian?
5 A You're asking me whether or not I think he's a 11:43AM

6 Christian?
7 Q Was it the opinion of the church?
8 MS. EAZER: Objection as to opinion of the
9 church.
10 THE COURT: Sustained. 11:44AM

11 Q (By Mr. Sears) Was it your opinion?

12 A I had not had real communication with Tom and
13 so I don't feel like I'm validated in making that
14 evaluation.
15 Q Thank you. 11:44AM

16 MR. SEARS: No other questions.

17 THE COURT: Thank you. Redirect, please.
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MS. EAZER:
20 Q To be clear about your conversations with 11:44AM

21 M J , you said you had known him and you

22 went to family camp between the ages of seven to
23 thirteen?
24 A Somewhere in that broad range.
25 Q All right. At any time during your 11:44AM
 Page 147

1 communications with M as a younger child,

2 teenager, did he ever tell you anything about, you
3 know, what was happening to him or what had happened
4 to him at Miller Valley Baptist Church?
5 A No. 11:45AM

6 Q M -- he was described as a bookworm. Would

7 that be how you remember him from a teenager?
8 A Yeah.
9 Q Quiet?
10 A Yeah. 11:45AM

11 Q A bit shy?
12 A Yeah.
13 Q Now, as far as your conversation with M
14 after he spoke to the police, you said he didn't
15 tell you any details about what he told the police? 11:45AM

16 A Correct.
17 Q All right, and did you ask him? Were you
18 wanting to know what he told the police?
19 A I inappropriately assumed that everything was
20 contained in the letter that he wrote all those 11:46AM

21 years ago, so I didn't ask any questions.

22 Q All right. So you weren't pushing him for
23 more information so he could give it to the people
24 at the general assembly or anything like that?
25 A No. 11:46AM
 Page 148

1 Q Now, Mr. Sears asked you a lot of questions

2 about, you know, how you were offering to help start
3 the reconciliation process back in 2012 and up
4 through 2015. At that time you didn't know about
5 allegations of molestation; correct? 11:46AM

6 A Correct.
7 Q Had you known, would you have -- would
8 reconciliation be something you would still be
9 attempting to do?
10 MR. SEARS: Speculation. 11:46AM

11 THE COURT: Sustained.

12 Q (By Ms. Eazer) I want to ask you some
13 questions about the documents because Mr. Sears
14 asked you a lot of questions about the church
15 documents, and I'm going to show you what's been 11:46AM

16 marked as State's Exhibit 56. Does that look to be

17 the packet of information you provided to Jessica
18 Belling, sir?
19 A I believe so, yes.
20 Q Now, Mr. Sears -- I counted at least five 11:47AM

21 times he asked you about how the defendant had in

22 that document -- in those documents that you had
23 read, how he repeatedly denied having done the
24 things he was accused of. Let me ask you, sir,
25 anywhere in those documents is there any statement 11:47AM
 Page 149

1 of the defendant anywhere?

2 MR. SEARS: The exhibit is not in evidence.
3 THE COURT: Let her finish the question,
4 please. Finish your question.
5 MS. EAZER: I'm asking if --
6 THE COURT: I said finish your question.
7 You didn't finish your question.
8 MS. EAZER: I'm sorry.
9 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Does that appear to be the
10 documents from -- that you provided to the police in 11:47AM

11 this matter?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And have you reviewed those documents on a
14 number of occasions before coming to court?
15 A Yes. 11:48AM

16 Q Did you ever see in those documents a

17 statement written or otherwise from the defendant?
18 MR. SEARS: Same objection.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 A A direct statement from Tom Chantry? 11:48AM

21 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Correct.

22 A No.
23 Q And, likewise, were there statements of the
24 children recorded in that? Aside from the letter
25 from M J and the letters from the parents, 11:48AM
 Page 150

1 did you see any statements from the children that

2 the council took?
3 A Not that I recall.
4 Q Any summaries of statements that were taken?
5 A I don't think so. 11:48AM

6 Q All right. Likewise, the council presumably

7 spoke to the defendant. Did you see any summaries
8 of the defendant's statement in there?
9 A I'm not sure.
10 Q Do you think there were any statements of the 11:48AM

11 defendant saying, you know, what his words were and

12 he was adamantly denying these things?
13 MR. SEARS: Foundation, asked and answered.
14 THE COURT: Sustained.
15 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Is there any reason to believe 11:48AM

16 that there are statements recorded of the defendant

17 in that packet of the information?
18 MR. SEARS: Same objection.
19 THE COURT: Sustained.
20 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Now, Mr. Sears asked you about 11:49AM

21 the defendant repeatedly denying these things and

22 that you yourself were -- why were you asking him to
23 repent to something that he was repeatedly
24 supposedly denying in these documents? Can you turn
25 to -- can you find the report that Mr. Sears was 11:49AM
 Page 151

1 referring to with the recommendations and

2 conclusions?
3 MR. SEARS: Now the witness is being asked
4 to read from the exhibit not in evidence.
5 THE COURT: Sustained. 11:49AM

6 MS. EAZER: Judge, may we approach?

7 THE COURT: Sure.
8 (Whereupon, the following bench
9 conference was had out of the hearing of the jury.)
10 MS. EAZER: Mr. Sears, aside from 11:49AM

11 misrepresenting that in that packet of information

12 the defendant had repeatedly denied ever having done
13 the things he's accused of, which there's not even
14 one statement that he repeatedly ever denied that
15 which he was having done, he asked this witness how 11:49AM

16 are you -- why were you expecting him to repent to

17 something he had never -- he repeatedly denied
18 doing, and the conclusion was that there was
19 inappropriate outbursts, inappropriate physical
20 discipline, that was why he had to repent; that was 11:50AM

21 the conclusion; that was what he agreed to and the

22 defendant signed, and in addition, the council said
23 he needed to -- his repentance was not complete. So
24 it was the council, and he made it like this
25 witness, that was his own personal opinion that was 11:50AM
 Page 152

1 based on nothing and, in fact, it was based on that

2 was the agreement and that was, you know, the
3 overall finding. It's not getting into anything
4 improper.
5 THE COURT: Concerning any questions about 11:50AM

6 the repeated denials, you've already asked that.

7 We're past that, but why can't she ask what was his
8 understanding that he had to do because you kind of
9 opened the door to the whole thing.
10 MR. SEARS: Well, that is, I think, 11:50AM

11 consistent with your ruling last week about Section

12 8.
13 THE COURT: But that only -- I mean, that
14 applied to Mr. Owens because he opened the door to
15 that himself. We didn't really talk about it for 11:51AM

16 this individual, but you opened the door for this

17 individual as to his understanding what the
18 defendant had to do. I think it goes to his motive,
19 bias, et cetera.
20 MR. SEARS: If this is a lead-up to the 11:51AM

21 State trying to admit this entire packet of

22 information over all of the essentially unresolved
23 hearsay objections, lack of foundation, no business
24 records, not his document, I'd like -- she is now
25 going away from this Section 8. Whether I agree or 11:51AM
 Page 153

1 not, he's the one that I think volunteered that this

2 was explained to him and he took up that cause
3 independent of what the elders did and he's the one
4 that continued to assert this Section 8 violation
5 all the way through the ARBCA letter of resignation. 11:52AM

6 THE COURT: I don't have a problem with

7 that. We're not going to admit the document.
8 MR. SEARS: Right. That's where I thought
9 we were going.
10 THE COURT: No, no, no.
11 MR. SEARS: She is using it extensively as
12 if it were in evidence, asking him to read it,
13 asking him to report about it, look here and see
14 what you see. That's I think the problem with the
15 use -- 11:52AM

16 THE COURT: Well, I think she can use it to

17 refresh his recollection as to what the defendant
18 was supposed to do and why he didn't think the
19 defendant did that.
20 MR. SEARS: Which my sense of where these 11:52AM

21 questions are going now is away from Section 8. Now

22 it's talking about look over here and see if you see
23 any place where he makes a statement that's in these
24 records that he expressly denies. Actually there
25 are places -- 11:52AM
 Page 154

1 THE COURT: Well, that's why I said we've

2 moved past the first part.
3 MR. SEARS: Yeah.
4 THE COURT: Now we're getting to the second
5 part, which I'm going to allow. 11:53AM

6 MR. SEARS: The second part would be?

7 THE COURT: What he had to do.
8 MR. SEARS: Well --
9 THE COURT: And it is relevant because it
10 goes to what he didn't do and in this witness's 11:53AM

11 mind, as to why he took certain action, in other

12 words, why he objected to ARBCA.
13 MR. SEARS: Well, I agree. That's Section
14 8 stuff and we went down that road and I'm not
15 surprised that she's coming back, but what I thought 11:53AM

16 these questions were is a totally different subject,

17 which was responding to my cross about some
18 completely unrelated document, just in general why
19 you think Tom should apologize and repent and seek
20 forgiveness for something he says he didn't do. An 11:53AM

21 example of that was you never saw that; did you see
22 anyplace where Tom ever admitted he did anything
23 wrong that he needed to apologize for. That's where
24 that came from, nothing to do with -- the State has
25 been waiting for an opportunity, I thought, to try 11:54AM
 Page 155

1 and move the admission of this whole document saying

2 he opened the door. I thought my question was
3 pretty focused on about all the places he had
4 information to form his opinion that Tom was
5 unrepentant and hadn't complied with the Section 8 11:54AM

6 again by not saying -- by refusing to concede that

7 he had apologized for something that he steadfastly
8 denied. He agreed he signed it. He said more than
9 once that he doesn't know of any place where Tom
10 ever admitted to any of the criminal conduct, just 11:54AM

11 what he thought.
12 THE COURT: The documents aren't going to
13 be admitted. They can be used to refresh his
14 recollection as to what Mr. Chantry was supposed to
15 do to get back into ARBCA and he -- he didn't do 11:54AM

16 these things and this is why. You can introduce it

17 in that context.
18 MS. EAZER: Right.
19 THE COURT: But be careful as to admissions
20 or statements. 11:55AM

21 MR. SEARS: Well, one last point that has

22 to do with the technical mechanics of refreshing
23 recollection, to establish the absence of a present
24 recollection and use the document, put it down, that
25 little dance that we've gone through many times now, 11:55AM
 Page 156

1 and I haven't seen that yet.

2 THE COURT: Right. Let's do that.
3 MR. SEARS: It's also noon.
4 MS. EAZER: I can finish in five minutes,
5 Judge. It's not necessarily refreshing 11:55AM

6 recollection.
7 THE COURT: It is.
8 MS. EAZER: Well --
9 THE COURT: It is.
10 MS. EAZER: Okay. 11:55AM

11 THE COURT: Thank you.

12 (Whereupon, the bench conference was
13 concluded and proceedings continued in the hearing
14 of the jury.)
15 THE COURT: Thank you. Please continue. 11:55AM

16 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Sir, Mr. Sears asked you a lot

17 of questions about why you were expecting certain
18 things of this defendant, why you were writing
19 letters and you were demanding he do certain things.
20 Let me ask you, do you recall, and if you need to 11:56AM

21 look at the document, we'll get to that, but do you

22 recall in the document, in the council's report, the
23 council finds that his repentance may not be
24 complete?
25 A That's correct. 11:56AM
 Page 157

1 Q And do you recall in the report by the

2 council, the three men that came down to Prescott
3 and did this investigation, that they said before he
4 could enter the ministry, he needed to comply with
5 certain things? 11:56AM

6 MR. SEARS: Leading.

7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 A Correct.
9 Q (By Ms. Eazer) And specifically, sir, did the
10 council require in their findings, which were signed 11:56AM

11 by the defendant, that the defendant needed to meet

12 with the families and repent and seek their
13 forgiveness?
14 MR. SEARS: Misstates the evidence.
15 A That's correct. 11:56AM

16 MR. SEARS: The document speaks for itself,

17 Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: In that case, the objection is
19 sustained. The answer is stricken. The jury is not
20 to consider it for any purpose. You can read from 11:57AM

21 the document.
22 Q (By Ms. Eazer) All right, sir. On the last
23 page of the report under No. 7, do they talk about
24 there's differences between what the children have
25 said and what the defendant has said? 11:57AM
 Page 158

1 A Correct.
2 Q And specifically does it say it is recommended
3 that the elders who assumed the oversight of Thomas
4 Chantry address these differences because it is the
5 opinion of this informal council that his repentance 11:57AM

6 may not be complete?

7 A Correct.
8 Q Do they go on to say, No. 8, and this is what
9 we've talked about, that Thomas Chantry endeavor to
10 seek full repentance and forgiveness from each of 11:57AM

11 the four children and their parents who have been

12 the subject of physical discipline by him? It is
13 recommended that the elders who assumed the
14 oversight of Thomas Chantry assist with this
15 process? 11:58AM

16 A Correct.
17 Q All right. So my question, sir, is again as
18 far as what you were expecting of him, were you
19 basing it on what you understood the contract
20 required of him? 11:58AM

21 MR. SEARS: Objection to the form.

22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 A Correct.
24 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Now, Mr. Sears asked you if
25 you had conversations after you found out about the 11:58AM
 Page 159

1 molest allegations from J E with someone in

2 ARBCA wherein you relayed that information?
3 A Correct.
4 Q Did you feel it was important to let someone
5 know that someone who was presently pastoring a 11:58AM

6 church has pending charges involving molestation of

7 a child?
8 A Correct.
9 MR. SEARS: Leading.
10 THE COURT: Overruled. 11:58AM

11 Q (By Ms. Eazer) One last question: As you sit

12 here today, you've been asked a lot of questions
13 about why you took certain actions, why you withdrew
14 from ARBCA, all that. Do you, sir, believe that
15 what you did as a church, you know, through ARBCA 11:59AM

16 and withdrawing your membership, do you believe any

17 of that has anything to do with the criminal charges
18 in this case?
19 A No.
20 MS. EAZER: Thank you, sir. No further 11:59AM

21 questions.
22 THE COURT: Any questions for this witness
23 from any members of the jury? Thank you. Counsel
24 approach, please.
25 (Whereupon, the following bench
 Page 160

1 conference was had out of the hearing of the jury.)

2 THE COURT: This is Jury Question No. 8.
3 It has a couple of sections. I think there's
4 another juror writing another question.
5 MR. SEARS: No objection from the 12:00PM

6 defendant.
7 MS. EAZER: No objection.
8 THE COURT: There's one more coming. This
9 is Question No. 9.
10 MR. SEARS: No objection. 12:00PM

11 MS. EAZER: I object. I don't think he

12 knows.
13 THE COURT: What's your objection?
14 MS. EAZER: Foundation.
15 THE COURT: He was at the time because it 12:01PM

16 was at the time of the report. The question doesn't

17 say that, but so at the time of this report were you
18 one of the elders; do you have any direct knowledge
19 as to what was done to address the differences
20 between -- 12:01PM

21 MR. SEARS: 2000?

22 THE COURT: Right.
23 MR. SEARS: I'm not 100 percent sure
24 that's -- because --
25 THE COURT: It's broader than that. 12:01PM
 Page 161

1 MR. SEARS: What he testified to is they

2 were -- in 2012 they got this request for this guy
3 to do this reconciliation. I thought that was the
4 time period in the question. That was another
5 alternative foundation. 12:01PM

6 THE COURT: Well, we can ask during the

7 time period that he's been an elder.
8 MR. SEARS: He wouldn't know and it would
9 be rank hearsay for him to guess what was done in
10 2000. 12:02PM

11 THE COURT: Right. During the time he's

12 been an elder, what did the elders do?
13 MR. SEARS: I think that has to be the
14 logical question.
15 THE COURT: I think I can ask that 12:02PM

16 question.
17 MS. EAZER: I think they're talking about
18 the last thing I read, which was the elders who
19 assumed --
20 THE COURT: Right, exactly. What's your 12:02PM

21 objection?
22 MS. EAZER: Well, the elders who assumed
23 responsibility over the defendant was the other
24 church in another state.
25 THE COURT: It did say -- 12:02PM
 Page 162

1 MS. EAZER: Elders who oversee the

2 defendant so it's a different state.
3 THE COURT: Sure. That's a good point,
4 Miss Eazer.
5 MR. SEARS: That's what the elders did. 12:02PM

6 MS. EAZER: That's what I read.

7 MR. SEARS: So 2000, what did they do to
8 address the difference between -- so that has to
9 somehow be connected to someone like --
10 MS. EAZER: It's the last thing I said. 12:02PM

11 It's recommended that the elders who assumed

12 oversight of Thomas Chantry address the differences
13 between --
14 MR. SEARS: Oh, oh. You're talking about
15 the elders in Washington state? 12:03PM

16 THE COURT: No, no.

17 MS. EAZER: Yeah.
18 MR. SEARS: That's what she thinks. That's
19 what it says, the elders have to do something.
20 THE COURT: Well, but what this comes from 12:03PM

21 -- I think it's clear that the last question which

22 had to do with the elders. He never took oversight.
23 MR. SEARS: Then he doesn't know.
24 THE COURT: Right. So it's really a
25 relevance and foundation objection. 12:03PM
 Page 163

1 MR. SEARS: Yes.

2 (Whereupon, the bench conference was
3 concluded and proceedings continued in the hearing
4 of the jury.)
5 THE COURT: Does ARBCA provide financial 12:03PM

6 aid to churches under its membership?

7 A Not regularly. There's certain situations
8 wherein a church can request aid.
9 THE COURT: The follow-up question is, are
10 funds distributed between all churches in its 12:03PM

11 membership? And I guess you just answered that.

12 It's just the churches who ask.
13 A Where there's a special need, yeah.
14 THE COURT: So ARBCA doesn't dole out funds
15 to every member church; is that correct? 12:04PM

16 A Correct.
17 THE COURT: Thank you. Any follow-up
18 questions to that from the State?
19 MS. EAZER: No, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Sears? 12:04PM

21 MR. SEARS: Very quickly. I know it's the

22 lunch hour.
23 FOLLOW-UP EXAMINATION
24 BY MR. SEARS:
25 Q Does it cost anything to belong to ARBCA? 12:04PM
 Page 164

1 A There's not a cost.

2 Q How does ARBCA support itself then?
3 A Donations.
4 Q From member churches primarily?
5 A Correct. 12:04PM

6 Q And occasionally on some special needs basis

7 you can ask for funding for a project, for a
8 missionary project or something?
9 A Correct.
10 Q Thank you. 12:04PM

11 THE COURT: Thank you. May this witness be

12 excused?
13 MR. SEARS: Yes.
14 MS. EAZER: Yes, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you. 12:04PM

16 At this time we'll take our lunch recess and we'll

17 start up again at 1:30. Remember the admonition.
18 Thank you very much.
19 (Whereupon, the jury exited the
20 courtroom.) 12:05PM

21 THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. You may

22 be seated. So we'll finish up then with Mr. W
23 after lunch?
24 MS. EAZER: Yes.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else at 12:05PM
 Page 165

1 this time?
2 MR. SEARS: Judge, over the lunch hour we
3 are going to set up and make sure we can play the
4 Debbie Davis video so we can do it seamlessly.
5 THE COURT: Absolutely. Thank you for 12:05PM

6 doing that. Enjoy your lunch, everybody.

7 (Following a lunch recess at 12:05
8 p.m., proceedings continued on the Record at 1:26
9 p.m.)
10 MR. SEARS: We can report that at the very 01:26PM

11 end of the lunch hour, we got the video working.

12 The question is -- we apparently have the capacity
13 to play it on that screen but also the one in the
14 gallery. Do you care about that? Do you have an
15 opinion as to whether that should be played back 01:26PM

16 there or just for the jury to see?

17 THE COURT: I'll play it back there. No
18 reason for me to preclude the public from seeing it.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. SEARS: I think there's just one audio. 01:27PM

21 It doesn't have separate audio. It just plays

22 through the speakers.
23 THE COURT: Correct. Same thing when you
24 put up pictures. It can broadcast there.
25 Mr. W , come on back up here, sir. Thank 01:28PM
 Page 166

1 you.
2 MR. SEARS: One other thought about a
3 break. This runs three hours and fifteen minutes.
4 If we break in the middle, it's like watching two
5 theater movies back to back. I think there might be 01:29PM

6 a natural break because of the time of day and when

7 we get to this and everything, but I would ask that
8 they not go more than about an hour and fifteen
9 minutes.
10 THE COURT: That's fine. What we'll do is 01:29PM

11 I'll rely on you. If it's an hour and you think

12 it's a good time to break, if you guys want to stop,
13 that's fine with me.
14 MR. SEARS: Thank you.
15 (Whereupon, the jury entered the
16 courtroom.)
17 THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. Ladies
18 and Gentlemen, if you recall, we broke not that long
19 into Mr. W 's testimony. This is T W
20 and we'll continue with his direct examination now 01:31PM

21 by the State. So if you want to take new notes or

22 go back to your old notes or whatever you have,
23 that's fine. So this is T W . He was
24 already sworn in and he continues to remain under
25 oath. Whenever you are ready, Miss Eazer. 01:31PM
 Page 167

1 MS. EAZER: Thank you, Judge.

2 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
3 BY MS. EAZER:
4 Q Good afternoon, Mr. W .
5 A Hi. 01:32PM

6 Q Just to kind of remind the jury, you I believe

7 had told us you are the -- I talk louder after lunch
8 apparently. You are the father of J and W
9 W ; is that correct?
10 A Yes, I am. 01:32PM

11 Q All right, and you are married and live in

12 Prescott I believe?
13 A Yes.
14 Q All right. Mr. W , I think when we left
15 off, we had talked a little bit about how it came to 01:32PM

16 be that your kids were being babysat and being

17 tutored by Mr. Chantry, but can you remind us of the
18 approximate time frame that that occurred?
19 A I believe it to be in 1999 and after the
20 school year, the spring and the summer of '99. 01:32PM

21 Q All right. So during the summer of '99?

22 A Yes.
23 Q All right, and I think you said it was two to
24 four days a week?
25 A Depending, yes. 01:33PM
 Page 168

1 Q All right, okay. Now, we talked a little bit

2 about how you -- after the first week you had a
3 conversation with Mr. Chantry about whether it was
4 okay to spank the kids; correct?
5 A Yes. 01:33PM

6 Q All right, and when you left that conversation

7 with Mr. Chantry, did you have an understanding or
8 at least an impression that that wasn't going to
9 happen again?
10 A Yes, I did. 01:33PM

11 Q All right. Now, at some point, sir, I think

12 you had just kind of gotten to the point of telling
13 us that once there was some information provided to
14 you from the church about D L , that you had
15 some additional discussions with your kids; is that 01:33PM

16 correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q All right, and based on those discussions, did
19 you again confront the defendant about some actions
20 with your children? 01:34PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q Do you recall when that occurred?
23 A It was in 2000, latter part of the year.
24 Q Okay, all right, and do you recall where you
25 were when you confronted him? 01:34PM
 Page 169

1 A Yes. It was at the church office over at

2 Miller Valley Baptist.
3 Q And do you remember who was present when that
4 occurred?
5 A Tom and Rich Howe, my wife and I. 01:34PM

6 Q All right. Now, just to kind of put things

7 into context as far as time frame, was there a time
8 you recall speaking to a church council that came to
9 town?
10 A Yes. 01:34PM

11 Q All right. Was this before or after that,

12 this confrontation?
13 A It was before.
14 Q All right. Do you have an idea of how much
15 before; was it weeks, days, if you recall? 01:34PM

16 A I don't recall.
17 Q Daytime?
18 A It was evening.
19 Q All right. Can you tell me how that
20 conversation went, please? 01:35PM

21 A Basically I went over what had happened. We

22 were brought basically by Rich Howe to talk to Tom
23 in somewhat of a conciliatory type situation, but I
24 asked Tom if he had spanked our kids and I also
25 asked if he had spanked them with bare bottom. 01:35PM
 Page 170

1 Q Okay. Let me interrupt you there. When you

2 asked him about whether he spanked your kids bare
3 bottomed, were you speaking with respect to both
4 children or one or the other?
5 A From what I knew, I don't believe it was 01:35PM

6 J .
7 Q But you confronted him about spanking W
8 bare bottomed?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you recall what his reaction was and what 01:36PM

11 he said?
12 A He said he had not.
13 Q All right. Do you remember what his demeanor
14 was, meaning the defendant, when you confronted him
15 with spanking W bare bottomed? 01:36PM

16 A He just basically said, no, he had not.

17 Q All right.
18 A Defended himself.
19 Q All right. Did he make any admissions to
20 spanking the kids after the first confrontation when 01:36PM

21 you had an understanding that he was not going to do

22 that again?
23 A Yes, he did.
24 Q What did he say?
25 A As best I can remember, that he had spanked 01:36PM
 Page 171

1 them more after my discussion with him at the

2 parsonage.
3 Q Now, because you had what you thought was an
4 understanding with him that he wasn't going to be
5 engaging in that type of activity anymore, did you 01:36PM

6 confront him about that, why he would do that after

7 the first time?
8 A I did ask him why.
9 Q What did he say if you can recall?
10 A As best I can remember, he basically said that 01:37PM

11 they needed more discipline in their lives.

12 Q Did you say anything to the defendant about
13 what you might do in the future if the matter didn't
14 get resolved?
15 A I did tell him that if he did do anything to 01:37PM

16 the children, that there would be no statute of

17 limitations on any situation that he would have
18 harmed the children.
19 Q And how did he respond to that, if you recall?
20 A He didn't say much. 01:37PM

21 Q How long do you think this conversation

22 lasted?
23 A Maybe twenty minutes.
24 Q And during the entire twenty minutes he never
25 admitted to spanking W bare bottomed? 01:37PM
 Page 172

1 A No.
2 Q Now, after that conversation, do you recall
3 whether the defendant stuck around very much longer?
4 A He did not.
5 Q All right. What do you recall as far as how 01:38PM

6 long he stayed in town after you had confronted him?

7 A This is the best I can remember. It's been a
8 long time ago. It wasn't more than just a couple of
9 days.
10 Q Do you remember whether you were expecting him 01:38PM

11 to leave town or whether it came as a surprise?

12 A It came as a surprise that he left.
13 Q All right. At some point after that, sir, did
14 you become aware of the defendant's sister being in
15 town to remove some of his property from the 01:38PM

16 parsonage?
17 A Yes.
18 Q How did you first learn of that?
19 A I can't remember exactly.
20 Q Let me ask you, Mr. W , because I may not 01:38PM

21 have asked you this before, were you a deacon at the

22 church at this time?
23 A I was.
24 Q All right. Did you, as a deacon, have
25 occasion to be on church grounds other than just 01:39PM
 Page 173

1 Sundays and Wednesdays when normal sermons would be?

2 A Yes.
3 Q At some point when you were on church grounds
4 did you see the defendant's sister there moving
5 stuff out of the parsonage? 01:39PM

6 A Yes.
7 Q Tell us about that. Do you remember what --
8 approximately what time of the day it was?
9 A I think it was morning and the moving truck
10 was there getting Tom's stuff, and I went over and 01:39PM

11 asked his sister if I could have the oar that

12 belonged to the Selph family.
13 Q All right. Let me back you up for a moment.
14 Do you remember what month that might have been?
15 A It seems to me September or October. 01:39PM

16 Q Okay. If I told you that the church records

17 show that the council came in December, do you
18 recall how much sooner it might have been that you
19 saw the moving going on?
20 A I think it was maybe a month before. 01:40PM

21 Q Okay. So you saw --

22 A Maybe two.
23 Q Okay. So you saw his sister there moving
24 belongings. Did you see the defendant at that time?
25 A No. 01:40PM
 Page 174

1 Q All right, and you said you approached her and

2 asked about an oar?
3 A Yes.
4 Q All right. Without going into anything
5 anybody may have said, did you have some information 01:40PM

6 from speaking with your children that a boat oar may

7 have been involved?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And so you mentioned something about Bob Selph
10 having an oar. Tell us about that. 01:40PM

11 A When they moved, they left some of their

12 things there at the parsonage, which was five years
13 previous.
14 Q Did you ever see the boat oar?
15 A Yes. 01:40PM

16 Q All right. Was it like a huge kayak oar or a

17 smaller oar; can you describe it?
18 A It was probably an oar used for doing either
19 kayaking or maybe a canoe.
20 Q About how big do you recall it being? 01:41PM

21 A Maybe five feet, five and a half feet.

22 Q Okay. Now, when you asked the sister or Tom's
23 sister for the oar, were you able to get it?
24 A No, I wasn't.
25 Q Did you attempt to photograph it? 01:41PM
 Page 175

1 A I don't remember.
2 Q Okay. Do you remember speaking to the police
3 about that when -- you were speaking to somebody
4 about that, I think the police at one point, or no?
5 A No. 01:41PM

6 Q Okay. Do you remember attempting to get your

7 camera from your car to take a picture, or no?
8 A I don't remember.
9 Q That's okay.
10 A Yeah. 01:41PM

11 Q In the end you weren't able to get it, weren't

12 able to get a photograph?
13 A Right.
14 Q Okay. Now, when the council came to take --
15 to investigate the matter, did you allow them to 01:42PM

16 speak to your children?

17 A Yes.
18 Q And do you know if the children were
19 interviewed alone, meaning individually?
20 A I think so. 01:42PM

21 Q All right. Were either yourself or your wife

22 present?
23 A No.
24 Q After --
25 A We were present at the Howe's house when this 01:42PM
 Page 176

1 went on but we did not -- we weren't there for the

2 interview with that council.
3 Q After --
4 A We were upstairs.
5 Q Only one of us can talk at a time. 01:42PM

6 A Thank you.
7 Q So you were upstairs, and which house were you
8 at?
9 A The Howe's house, which is over on Yabachai
10 (phonetic). 01:42PM

11 Q Is that your house?

12 A No. Rich and Susan Howe's.
13 Q So you are upstairs, the kids are interviewed
14 and no one is present; is that correct?
15 A Correct. 01:43PM

16 Q Now, at some point once the interviews had

17 been completed and the investigation is done, were
18 you assured anything by the elders of the church or
19 the council with respect to what would happen that
20 day forward? 01:43PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q What?
23 A Basically Tom wouldn't be working with
24 children anymore nor would he be a pastor. There
25 were some things he had to work through such as 01:43PM
 Page 177

1 apologizing.
2 Q Well, yeah. I just want to know what you were
3 told and if you were told that, that's okay. You
4 were told he had to do some certain things?
5 A That he was to complete. 01:43PM

6 Q Okay, but I guess what I was getting to is

7 were you and your wife assured that he was not going
8 to be pastoring any further?
9 A Yes.
10 Q All right. Was there much discussion at the 01:43PM

11 time about whether or not anyone would make a report

12 to the police if you recall?
13 A There was -- basically there was discussion if
14 we did see that we needed to go to the police, that
15 we could, but that they would handle this as a 01:44PM

16 church matter and if we were good with that, that's

17 how they would like to handle it.
18 Q All right. Now, we've heard a lot of
19 testimony throughout trial about forgiveness and
20 some of the principles that are perhaps very, very 01:44PM

21 important to the Reformed Baptist religion and in

22 particular as well Miller Valley Baptist Church. In
23 your view, sir, was repentance and forgiveness a
24 pretty big part of your daily religion?
25 A Absolutely. 01:45PM
 Page 178

1 Q All right, and after the first incident with

2 the defendant where you indicated that he had
3 spanked your children, did you forgive him?
4 A I think so.
5 Q All right. You continued to allow him to 01:45PM

6 watch the kids?

7 A We did.
8 Q All right. Now, when the time came for you to
9 decide whether or not you were going to go forward
10 to the police, did you rely in some part on the fact 01:45PM

11 that you believed the defendant wouldn't be

12 pastoring any further?
13 A Yes.
14 Q All right. So at some point you learned that
15 he is pastoring again; is that correct? 01:45PM

16 A Much later.
17 Q Okay. Do you recall about when it was when
18 you first learned that?
19 A I'm not exactly sure but it may have been
20 years later, so from what I understood maybe six, 01:46PM

21 five or six years after.

22 Q Okay. Let me ask you some more questions with
23 respect to that. We heard earlier from Pastor Chris
24 Marley. You know him; correct?
25 A Yes. 01:46PM
 Page 179

1 Q And that would be Chris, the son, not junior,

2 but Chris, the son, Marley?
3 A Right.
4 Q Now, he indicated that at some point he came
5 to you to ask whether the defendant had ever come to 01:46PM

6 you, come to your wife, your children to

7 apologize -- I shouldn't keep using the word
8 apologize -- to repent and to ask for forgiveness.
9 Do you recall having that conversation with Pastor
10 Marley? 01:46PM

11 A Yes.
12 Q And do you remember whether or not at the time
13 he came to you, whether you were already aware that
14 the defendant had been actively pastoring a church?
15 A I didn't know that he was pastoring a church 01:47PM

16 but I knew that -- for semantic's sake, I knew that

17 he had -- from what we understood, that he had
18 preached again and that may have happened sooner
19 than him being pastor.
20 Q So just for clarification, and when I'm saying 01:47PM

21 pastoring a church, I'm speaking of Wisconsin and

22 Hales Corner, but you may have had knowledge that he
23 was actually just doing sermons in a church prior to
24 that; is that correct?
25 A Right. 01:47PM
 Page 180

1 Q Do you remember -- well, let me ask you, when

2 you heard that he may have been doing sermons again
3 but before, you know, he was actually pastoring his
4 own church, did you take any steps to contact
5 anybody or did you reach out? 01:47PM

6 A No.
7 Q You got to wait until I finish my question
8 before you answer. Did you reach out to anybody to
9 say, hey, what's he doing giving sermons in church
10 again? 01:48PM

11 A No.
12 Q Okay. Which brings me to my next question, in
13 the -- let's say since 2000 when the investigation
14 occurred, did you -- in the years following, did you
15 follow the defendant, I mean follow him online or 01:48PM

16 check up on him or take any --

17 A No.
18 Q Got to wait until I finish. Take any steps to
19 see what he was doing?
20 A No, I did not. 01:48PM

21 Q Okay. You indicated that at some point you

22 found out he may have been at least doing sermons in
23 a church. Do you recall how you found that out?
24 A It was -- I don't recall exactly but it was
25 from within our church body. 01:48PM
 Page 181

1 Q All right. Now, you started to say something

2 about at the time that the council did the
3 investigation and spoke to your children and you,
4 you had been assured, A, that he wasn't going to
5 pastor again but also that he was to do a few things 01:49PM

6 down the road; correct?

7 A Yes.
8 Q All right. We've heard some testimony about
9 one of the recommendations in the paperwork that
10 perhaps you might be familiar with but where he was 01:49PM

11 to repent and apologize to the children and their

12 families; is that what you are speaking of?
13 A Yes.
14 Q All right. At any time, Mr. W , after you
15 confronted the defendant about continuing to spank 01:49PM

16 your children and more particularly the

17 bare-bottomed spanking of your son, did you ever
18 have occasion to see him again after that time?
19 A No.
20 Q Did he ever reach out to you or your kids or 01:49PM

21 your wife to apologize, anything?

22 A No.
23 Q All right. Now, in 2015 Pastor Marley said he
24 contacted you to ask you that. Do you recall that?
25 Asked you whether or not the defendant had ever 01:50PM
 Page 182

1 reached out to you?

2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. At that time do you recall any further
4 conversation with Pastor Marley about why he was
5 asking you whether the defendant had reached out to 01:50PM

6 you or your wife or your kids?

7 A Yes. He said that we were going to be
8 contacted --
9 MR. SEARS: Hearsay.
10 THE COURT: Sustained. 01:50PM

11 MR. SEARS: Move to strike.

12 THE COURT: Sustained. The last answer
13 given by this witness is struck from the record.
14 You are not to consider it for any purpose. Thank
15 you. 01:50PM

16 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Let me just ask you, without

17 going into what was said, did you understand it may
18 have something to do with the defendant applying for
19 admission to ARBCA?
20 A No. 01:50PM

21 Q Anything to do with the defendant pastoring

22 again?
23 A Not as I remember.
24 Q Okay. Let me ask you, when you were contacted
25 by Pastor Marley, did he in any way suggest that 01:51PM
 Page 183

1 you, your wife or your kids reach out and make a

2 police report?
3 A No.
4 Q All right. Do you remember any type of
5 suggestion by Pastor Marley or anyone that, hey, you 01:51PM

6 know, we've got to band together and stop Tom

7 Chantry from becoming a pastor again so everybody
8 needs to file police reports?
9 A No.
10 Q All right. In fact, sir, did you on your own 01:51PM

11 at any time ever go forward to file a police report?

12 A No.
13 Q All right. Now, at some point were you
14 contacted by law enforcement in reference to this
15 investigation and this case that we're here on 01:51PM

16 today?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Do you recall approximately when that was?
19 A It's probably been probably about two years
20 ago February. 01:52PM

21 Q Okay. So February 2016?

22 A Yes.
23 Q And do you recall who it was that contacted
24 you?
25 A Yes. 01:52PM
 Page 184

1 Q Who was it?

2 A It was Jessica Belling.
3 Q Okay. Now, when Jessica Belling, then I guess
4 Detective Bernard, contacted you, did she tell you
5 anything specific about what she was investigating? 01:52PM

6 A No.
7 Q All right. Did you know that she was
8 investigating something involving the defendant?
9 A She needed to talk to my kids, so that's what
10 she asked and, yes, I had an understanding of what 01:52PM

11 was coming.
12 Q So you knew that she needed to talk to your
13 kids and it was about Tom Chantry?
14 A Yes.
15 Q All right. At any time did she share with you 01:53PM

16 any of the facts of what her investigation had shown

17 up until the time she contacted you?
18 A Say that again.
19 Q At any time when you spoke to her, did she
20 share with you facts about what she knew from other 01:53PM

21 witnesses?
22 A No.
23 Q Did you even have an understanding at that
24 point what perhaps J E may have said?
25 A No. I know there was discussion but that's 01:53PM
 Page 185

1 all.
2 Q Okay. Now, did you know about J E
3 through being still a member of Miller Valley and
4 did that come up -- when J E made a report,
5 did that come up at church? 01:53PM

6 A Not in that way but, yes, through Chris.

7 Q Okay. Now, as far as, though, Detective
8 Belling, did she share with you what J E
9 said had happened?
10 A No. 01:54PM

11 Q Did Detective Belling share -- I'm sorry.

12 Jessica Belling share with you anything that M
13 J may have said?
14 A No.
15 Q All right. Did she share with you what she 01:54PM

16 anticipated your kids might say?

17 A No.
18 Q All right. After -- well, let me back up.
19 She asked -- she calls you. Was she looking for
20 information about how to reach your kids? 01:54PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q Because presumably they're not living at home
23 anymore?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Did you give her their contact information? 01:54PM
 Page 186

1 A I did.
2 Q After you spoke to Miss Belling, did you reach
3 out to your kids to know to expect a call?
4 A I did.
5 Q And I'm going to break it down. When you 01:54PM

6 spoke to J , did you tell her what she, you know,

7 should say?
8 A No.
9 Q Did you tell her what -- share with her any
10 thoughts you may have of the defendant or what he 01:54PM

11 had or had not done?

12 A Maybe.
13 Q Such as?
14 A Well, I mean, it had been a long time ago, but
15 we had discussions regarding this issue over and 01:55PM

16 over from years following.

17 Q All right, and I'm going to get to a little
18 bit about what happened in the years preceding but I
19 guess I should be a little bit more specific. When
20 you talked with J , did you suggest to her things 01:55PM

21 she should say to the detective?

22 A Just tell them what she remembered.
23 Q Right, but no specific details like, wow, you
24 should tell them, X, Y and Z?
25 A No. 01:55PM
 Page 187

1 Q Same thing with W . Did you tell W

2 things he should tell?
3 A No.
4 Q All right, and to your knowledge, your kids
5 back in 2000 when they were interviewed had -- well, 01:55PM

6 strike that. In 2000 when this matter first arose

7 before the council came, your kids had told you what
8 happened; correct?
9 A Somewhat.
10 Q And then they had been interviewed by the 01:56PM

11 three men that came down?

12 A Correct.
13 Q All right. Did you in any way try and refresh
14 your kids' recollection or tell them, you know,
15 remember to say this, this and this when you spoke 01:56PM

16 to them in 2016 after Detective Belling -- Bernard

17 reached you?
18 A No.
19 Q All right. Now, you said some things came up
20 over the years, and I'm not going to ask you about 01:56PM

21 things that were said specifically, but let me ask

22 you, has this been a topic that has caused some
23 tension over the years in your family?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And for a period of time did it create some 01:56PM
 Page 188

1 anger issues between you, your wife and the kids?

2 A Yes.
3 Q And based on your observations of your
4 daughter and son, has it been a situation that's
5 been difficult for them to deal with over the years? 01:57PM

6 A Yes.
7 Q Now, hindsight is always much easier, but as
8 you, you know, look back, you decided not to call
9 the police in this matter; is that correct, sir?
10 A True. 01:57PM

11 Q Is that something you regret today?

12 A Yes.
13 Q Mr. W , you were still attending Miller
14 Valley when this investigation came up; correct?
15 A Yes. 01:57PM

16 Q Were there any conversations at Miller Valley

17 between yourself and the elders, Rich Howe and Eric
18 Owens and Pastor Marley about, gosh, we got to get
19 this guy out of here, we got to stop him from
20 joining ARBCA or anything of that nature? 01:57PM

21 A Not so much. It's not in that context.

22 Q Were there concerns about the fact that Tom
23 Chantry --
24 A Yes.
25 Q You got to wait until I finish my question. 01:58PM
 Page 189

1 A Sorry.
2 Q Were there concerns about the fact that Tom
3 Chantry was still acting as a pastor?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Were your concerns so great or your anger at 01:58PM

6 this man so strong that you would encourage your

7 kids to embellish on what they told you or the
8 council back in 2000?
9 A No.
10 Q Are your concerns so great or your anger for 01:58PM

11 this man so strong that you would embellish what you

12 are telling this jury here today?
13 A No.
14 Q Thank you very much, sir.
15 MS. EAZER: I have no further questions. 01:59PM

16 THE COURT: Thank you. Cross examination?

17 MR. SEARS: Thank you, Your Honor.
18 CROSS EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. SEARS:
20 Q Good afternoon, Mr. W . Good to see you 01:59PM

21 again.
22 A Hi.
23 Q So let's go back a little bit earlier, if we
24 could, in your time at Miller Valley Church. When
25 did your family start attending there? 01:59PM
 Page 190

1 A Probably late '80s.

2 Q So you would have been there during the Bob
3 Selph pastoring; correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And everyone that has come here uniformly has 01:59PM

6 said that was a good time for the church; is that

7 your assessment?
8 A Yes.
9 Q That he was a good pastor and sorely missed
10 when he left in 1995? 01:59PM

11 A Yes.
12 Q Were you involved in any way in the recruiting
13 and hiring of Tom Chantry to replace Bob Selph?
14 A I attended.
15 Q You weren't at that time an officer of the 01:59PM

16 church, were you?

17 A No.
18 Q You eventually became a deacon. When did that
19 happen?
20 A I don't remember exactly but it was probably 01:59PM

21 around '98, '97.

22 Q While Tom was the pastor?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And were there other deacons then?
25 A Yes, I believe so. 02:00PM
 Page 191

1 Q Dave Frasier possibly?

2 A Dave.
3 Q Anybody else?
4 A I can't remember exactly but Dave mostly.
5 Q I got the impression from listening to the 02:00PM

6 description that the elders of the church, the two

7 elders and then the pastor was also an elder, were
8 really responsible for the spiritual and day-to-day
9 operations of the church, and the deacons sounded
10 like people that were called on to fix leaky roofs? 02:00PM

11 A More facilitating, yes, but we did help with

12 some of the financial things.
13 Q That was my next question. Were there other
14 responsibilities besides handyman, janitor,
15 maintenance? 02:00PM

16 A We helped with the budget.

17 Q And you were considered part of the church
18 leadership, so there would be meetings from time to
19 time where the deacons would meet with the elders
20 and the pastor and talk about various things; 02:00PM

21 correct?
22 A True.
23 Q How long did you maintain that position after
24 you got it sometime in the late '90s?
25 A Until about 2016. 02:01PM
 Page 192

1 Q Okay, and did you leave Miller Valley Baptist

2 Church at some point?
3 A Off and on, yes.
4 Q Are you attending there now?
5 A Sometimes. 02:01PM

6 Q Do you go to other churches?

7 A I do.
8 Q And was your decision to leave from time to
9 time in 2016 in any way related to the things that
10 were happening around Tom Chantry and the way the 02:01PM

11 church responded?
12 A To be candid, what happened back then was very
13 hard on my wife to deal with, being in the
14 sanctuary, so we don't go there for those --
15 Q When you say back, I'm sorry, you're talking 02:01PM

16 about?
17 A 2000, 1999.
18 Q The period of time that your children were
19 involved with Tom Chantry?
20 A Yes. 02:01PM

21 Q And it just brings back bad memories for your

22 wife?
23 A It does.
24 Q And they're so strong, you would just rather
25 not go there? 02:02PM
 Page 193

1 A Yes.
2 Q So in 1999, the summer of 1999 your kids were
3 out of school; correct?
4 A True.
5 Q And my understanding is that you and your wife 02:02PM

6 were both working outside the home?

7 A True.
8 Q And you had a particular babysitter; one of
9 the L girls was your regular babysitter; is
10 that right? 02:02PM

11 A Yes.
12 Q She had another job at Baskin Robbins
13 apparently that summer?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And so you were kind of caught in a spot where 02:02PM

16 you needed somebody to supervise your kids and

17 C wasn't going to be available all the time;
18 you and your wife weren't going to be available so
19 you were looking for a backstop, somebody to come in
20 and help; is that right? 02:02PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q And how old were T and J in the
23 summer of 1990?
24 A J and W ?
25 Q What did I say? 02:03PM
 Page 194

1 A T and J .
2 Q I'm not asking you -- I'm sorry. Your
3 children, how old were your children that summer?
4 A Let's see. Ten and eight.
5 Q Which is older? 02:03PM

6 A J .
7 Q Okay, and so they would have been attending
8 public school?
9 A They did go to Lincoln until about third grade
10 and then some other schools. 02:03PM

11 Q Christian schools, private schools?

12 A Later, yeah.
13 Q And so that --
14 A Charter.
15 Q I'm sorry. That summer they were getting 02:03PM

16 ready to go back to school in the fall at which

17 schools; do you remember?
18 A I think they went to Painted Pony next.
19 Q Which is a charter school?
20 A Correct. 02:03PM

21 Q Had they been in Painted Pony the previous

22 year?
23 A No.
24 Q So this would be a new experience for them?
25 A Yes. 02:03PM
 Page 195

1 Q Now, my understanding is the subject of Tom

2 being available and willing to watch J and W
3 that summer came up during a dinner at your house;
4 Tom was at your house for dinner; is that your
5 recollection? 02:04PM

6 A Yes.
7 Q So you and your wife would have been there and
8 the conversation came up about whether Tom could do
9 this. Do you remember who brought it up first, you
10 or Tom? 02:04PM

11 A I think we may have.

12 Q Okay, and you were aware at that point I
13 understand that Tom had previously tutored M
14 J , the child of one of the elders of the church;
15 correct? 02:04PM

16 A Yes.
17 Q Also he had been tutoring a boy named D
18 L , another child of a church member, for quite
19 some time; is that right?
20 A C 's brother, yes. 02:04PM

21 Q C 's brother. The L s are all

22 interconnected. We've seen a chart. There are a
23 number of L s in the church; right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And so can I assume that the fact that Tom had 02:04PM
 Page 196

1 already been doing these sorts of things for other

2 families in the church made it easy for you to
3 understand that he might be a candidate to help you
4 with your particular child care needs that summer
5 for your own two; right? 02:05PM

6 A Yes.
7 Q And if I understand what you told Miss Eazer
8 now and what you've said in the past, this was a few
9 hours a day, a few days a week as opposed to full
10 time five days a week; this was going to be just 02:05PM

11 filling in the gap between people that would watch

12 your kids until C L had to go to work;
13 right?
14 A True.
15 Q And can you tell us how the children would get 02:05PM

16 back and forth to Tom?

17 A I would usually pick the kids up from Tom's.
18 Tom would pick them up from our house.
19 Q You told us way back the last time you were
20 here that you had several jobs that summer. Sounded 02:05PM

21 like you were very busy and pretty much on the move
22 constantly; is that a fair assessment back then?
23 A What had been asked of me previously is what I
24 do now.
25 Q Oh, your three jobs are now? 02:05PM
 Page 197

1 A Right.
2 Q Were you working a similar kind of schedule
3 back in the summer of 1999?
4 A I was just working for Lindquist Realtors back
5 then. 02:06PM

6 Q So you had -- your schedule changed regularly

7 like realtors; you had different appointments on
8 different days at odd times?
9 A Correct.
10 Q It wasn't predictable like a 9:00 to 5:00 job? 02:06PM

11 A True.
12 Q And so Tom agreed to do this and my
13 understanding is from your own information provided
14 to us, that Tom brought up the question of whether
15 it would be okay to discipline your kids while he 02:06PM

16 was looking after them; is that true?

17 A Yes.
18 Q And that you thought -- when you asked him
19 what he meant by that, you thought he gave some sort
20 of a vague answer? 02:06PM

21 A He did.
22 Q And at the end of the dinner, in your mind had
23 you come to a clear understanding with Tom about, A,
24 whether disciplining your children would be
25 permitted at all and, B, what he meant by 02:07PM
 Page 198

1 discipline; was that issue nailed down in your mind

2 at the end of that dinner?
3 A No.
4 Q And my understanding is that shortly
5 thereafter you had a conversation with your wife 02:07PM

6 about whether or not what Tom was saying was asking

7 for permission to spank your children; is that
8 accurate?
9 A Say that again.
10 Q You and your wife had a conversation where she 02:07PM

11 essentially wanted to know whether Tom had just said

12 he wanted to spank your children; is that the way it
13 happened; she told you that?
14 A She did not want him to spank our children.
15 Q And she wanted you to contact Tom and say, 02:07PM

16 look, I don't know what you're talking about

17 discipline but if you're thinking about spanking the
18 kids, that's not going to be allowed; your wife
19 wanted you to do that; right?
20 A Correct. 02:07PM

21 Q And you didn't?

22 A Correct.
23 Q All right, and within a matter of a few days,
24 my understanding is that your children -- you are
25 picking them up, they were complaining, upset and 02:08PM
 Page 199

1 they were complaining that Tom had spanked them;

2 right?
3 A True.
4 Q Now, that was just to you. You were in the
5 car alone or was your wife with you? 02:08PM

6 A Just me.
7 Q Just you. So at that point you knew that a
8 problem existed because you hadn't called Tom back
9 to clarify that you and your wife didn't want the
10 children spanked and now they are reporting they had 02:08PM

11 been spanked and you are going to have to tell your

12 wife; right?
13 A The problem was that he did spank them.
14 Q Right, and you knew you were going to have to
15 tell your wife? 02:08PM

16 A Absolutely.
17 Q And you knew you hadn't called Tom after she
18 asked you to do that?
19 A True.
20 Q That's true? 02:08PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q And so you told your wife and predictably she
23 was upset by the idea that Tom would spank the
24 children; right?
25 A True. 02:08PM
 Page 200

1 Q And you said I'll go talk to Tom; right?

2 A True.
3 Q And you did?
4 A And I did.
5 Q And Tom -- it was a conversation but the 02:09PM

6 upshot of the conversation was that Tom agreed that

7 he wouldn't spank your kids ever again; right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And you came back and reported that to your
10 wife; right? 02:09PM

11 A I did.
12 Q And you told her that you thought that this
13 should be the end of it, that Tom was the pastor and
14 you should essentially just take him at his word and
15 not make a big deal out of this and trust that he 02:09PM

16 would do as he said; right; that was sort of your

17 position?
18 A True.
19 Q Okay. Your wife was a little skeptical, to
20 put it mildly; right? 02:09PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q But that's the way it was left, and that over
23 the next few weeks and months, you had occasion to
24 have Tom over to your house more than once; right?
25 A I don't remember. 02:09PM
 Page 201

1 Q Well, to put it another way, you didn't follow

2 up again immediately with Tom to be sure that he was
3 keeping his promise not to spank your children;
4 right?
5 A True. 02:10PM

6 Q And your children weren't reporting again that

7 they had been spanked; right?
8 A True.
9 Q Now, I assume that this babysitting ended at
10 the end of the summer when the children went off to 02:10PM

11 their new charter school; right?

12 A Yes.
13 Q So now we're into the fall of 1999; correct?
14 A Yes.
15 Q She can't see you nod your head. 02:10PM

16 A Yeah.
17 Q Thank you. And we go all the way through
18 until the following fall, the fall of 2000, and you
19 hear information that C S L , whom you
20 know from the church, right, you know who she is? 02:10PM

21 A Right.
22 Q The mother of D L ; correct?
23 A True.
24 Q Whom you knew, was not only being watched and
25 tutored by Tom but was being watched and tutored 02:10PM
 Page 202

1 together with your own children by Tom for that

2 second half of the summer, right, the previous year;
3 you knew D L was there; correct?
4 A Yes.
5 Q But D L was now making reports that 02:10PM

6 he had been badly treated and beaten and bruised by

7 Tom Chantry; right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Where did you hear that?
10 A From the elders. 02:11PM

11 Q From Rich and Shorty?

12 A I believe so.
13 Q Did they call you?
14 A As best I can remember.
15 Q I'm sorry. We're having the same problem. 02:11PM

16 I'll try to finish my question completely to let you

17 answer, if you would let me finish my question
18 before you answer. This nice lady here is taking
19 things down and will be a happy person. Can we
20 agree to do that? 02:11PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q Thank you. And so do you remember how it was
23 that Rich and Shorty communicated this information
24 about D L to you?
25 A From what I remember, a phone call. 02:11PM
 Page 203

1 Q From both of them or one of them?

2 A I can't remember exactly.
3 Q When do you think that would have been?
4 A It was somewhere around the fall, late summer
5 of 2000. 02:11PM

6 Q Could it have been in October of 2000?

7 A I don't remember. It could be.
8 Q And did whichever it was of the two of them,
9 Rich or Shorty, tell you where they got that
10 information? 02:12PM

11 A Yes.
12 Q What did they tell you?
13 A That they had been told by C that D
14 had gone through being treated like this.
15 Q So that was obviously very disturbing to you 02:12PM

16 and your wife; right?

17 A Yes, it was.
18 Q Okay, and so you had a conversation with your
19 kids and they revealed more information about what
20 had happened since Tom had promised you he wouldn't 02:12PM

21 spank the kids again; correct; they told you in much

22 more detail what happened?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Now, you said, if I understood your testimony
25 here just this afternoon, that you remember going 02:12PM
 Page 204

1 again to see Tom a second time; correct?

2 A A second time?
3 Q To talk about spanking your kids. You've told
4 us about the first time, which was very soon after
5 Tom started watching your kids and your kids 02:13PM

6 reported being spanked and you went to see Tom.

7 A We met at the church with Rich Howe and my
8 wife and I and Tom.
9 Q Okay, and do you remember writing a letter to
10 the church council in December of 2000, specifically 02:13PM

11 December 7th, 2000, a long letter to the church

12 council?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And this letter was I think pretty clearly
15 written by you because you are talking about P . 02:13PM

16 So it's written in your voice but it's signed by

17 both you and P . Your signatures appear on there.
18 Do you remember that specific letter?
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right, and that letter was solicited by 02:13PM

21 someone apparently to be given to these church

22 council members that were coming in from outside to
23 investigate this matter; is that right?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Okay. Have you looked at the letter recently? 02:14PM
 Page 205

1 A I have.
2 Q When was the last time you looked at it?
3 A Just a couple of weeks ago.
4 Q Okay. You would agree with me that in this
5 letter, which goes on for four pages, there's no 02:14PM

6 mention at all about meeting at the church with Rich

7 Howe and Tom, is there?
8 A No.
9 Q It's not in this letter whatsoever; correct?
10 A True. 02:14PM

11 Q Now, this letter was written coming up

12 eighteen years ago, right, December of the year 2000
13 but just a matter of a few months after you got this
14 information about D L and talked to your
15 kids and got much more information about them; this 02:14PM

16 letter was written just not long after all that

17 happened; right?
18 A True.
19 Q And it was your effort to put together a
20 detailed account of everything that happened 02:14PM

21 beginning with the first conversations in mid July

22 1999 about watching the kids all the way up to and
23 including the time you wrote the letter, everything
24 in between; right?
25 A True. 02:15PM
 Page 206

1 Q You are trying to do that; you are trying to

2 be thorough and accurate; correct?
3 A As best I could.
4 Q And I'm going to guess that your memory about
5 what had just happened in the previous months was 02:15PM

6 much clearer in December of 2000 than it is today?

7 A Yes.
8 Q And so today you remember a meeting at the
9 church with Tom in the church office and Rich Howe
10 and saying things to Tom and Tom responding but in 02:15PM

11 this letter no such meeting is ever mentioned;

12 correct?
13 A True.
14 Q Now, you also say today that at this meeting
15 that you say now took place in 2000 Tom was 02:15PM

16 confronted about the bare-bottomed spanking of your

17 son W ; correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Would you agree with me that this letter you
20 wrote back in December of 2000 doesn't say anything 02:16PM

21 at all about bare-bottomed spanking of either of

22 your children?
23 A True.
24 Q And, again, that's a detail that I would
25 assume you would have wanted very much to include in 02:16PM
 Page 207

1 your report to the church council in December of

2 2000; correct?
3 A True.
4 Q In December of 2000 when you wrote this letter
5 December 7th, in fact, your son W had not 02:16PM

6 revealed to you or your wife that he was claiming

7 that he had been bare-bottomed spanked by Tom; when
8 you wrote this letter, you had not been told this by
9 your own son; correct?
10 A True. 02:16PM

11 Q He didn't tell you that, in fact, until much

12 later; correct?
13 A Until later.
14 Q How much later?
15 A I mean, as best I can remember, it was, you 02:16PM

16 know, after the council.

17 Q Days, weeks, months after the council?
18 A I don't remember.
19 Q Could it have been years after?
20 A We had multiple discussions that I used to 02:17PM

21 talk to the kids and have talked to the kids since

22 then, and there were a number of times I would ask
23 them if they were still okay or how they were doing.
24 So there were all sorts of things that have been
25 discussed. 02:17PM
 Page 208

1 Q So it's hard to separate out in your mind, as

2 you sit here today, when specific things were
3 discussed with your children as to what date and
4 time that might have been; it all sort of runs
5 together that this was something -- an ongoing 02:17PM

6 topic; is that fair to say?

7 A That's fair to say.
8 Q And you told Miss Eazer that this has been a
9 source of stress in your family, and we saw and
10 heard from your son W and it's clear that he has 02:17PM

11 much the same feeling. Is it possible that W

12 first told you about this bare-bottomed spanking
13 just in the last few years?
14 A I don't remember.
15 Q Could it have been? 02:18PM

16 A From him?
17 Q Yes.
18 A Possibly.
19 Q This boat oar that you said you went looking
20 for belonged to Bob Selph; right? 02:18PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q You knew that; that was one of the things he
23 left behind at the parsonage?
24 A Right.
25 Q And it was up in the rafters someplace in the 02:18PM
 Page 209

1 carport; that's when you last saw it?

2 A No.
3 Q When did you last see it?
4 A In Tom's house.
5 Q Inside the house; is that right? Where in the 02:18PM

6 house?
7 A There was a little laundry and linen closet
8 and it was back by the linen closet.
9 Q Leaning up against the wall?
10 A At that time, yeah. 02:18PM

11 Q When you said --

12 A That was the last time I saw it.
13 Q And when was that; when Tom was there?
14 A It was after Tom left.
15 Q And before his sister Judy came to move his 02:19PM

16 stuff out for him?

17 A It was when she was there moving his stuff
18 out.
19 Q Which was not that long after Tom left?
20 A No. 02:19PM

21 Q Now, you said it looked like it was a canoe or

22 kayak oar or paddle; is that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And you said five, five and a half feet,
25 something like that? 02:19PM
 Page 210

1 A That's what I can remember.

2 Q And it was your understanding that your
3 children were saying that Thomas Chantry beat them
4 with this five or five and a half foot long boat
5 oar; is that what they were saying? 02:19PM

6 A Not my daughter.
7 Q She said that?
8 A No.
9 Q I'm sorry.
10 A My daughter did not get spanked with a boat 02:19PM

11 oar.
12 Q Right. W told you he was beaten with a
13 boat oar?
14 A From what I remember, it was D that was
15 spanked with the boat oar. 02:19PM

16 Q But W saw it?

17 A W saw D get spanked.
18 Q With this five or five and a half foot boat
19 oar?
20 A That's correct. 02:20PM

21 Q W didn't say he was paddled with it?

22 A I can't remember right at the moment.
23 Q Did you ever see any injuries or marks on
24 either one of your children --
25 A No. 02:20PM
 Page 211

1 Q -- that were attributable in their mind to Tom

2 Chantry?
3 A No.
4 Q They never reported that to you?
5 A No. 02:20PM

6 Q If they had, you certainly would have looked

7 as a father, right, or had your wife look?
8 A Absolutely.
9 Q And you don't remember anything of the sort;
10 right? 02:20PM

11 A No.
12 Q And, of course, there wouldn't have been any
13 medical records or reports or anything about this if
14 there weren't any actual injury; right?
15 A True. 02:20PM

16 Q And the children reported to you that they

17 were spanked and D L was spanked for
18 ridiculous reasons, right, that Tom invented some
19 sort of reason to justify spanking them; is that
20 your impression? 02:20PM

21 A True.
22 Q And so there was one story about being spanked
23 for not putting a coaster underneath a glass on a
24 table; right?
25 A True. 02:20PM
 Page 212

1 Q And let's go back to this. Did you have a

2 second meeting with Tom after the children revealed
3 in much more detail in 2000, a year plus after the
4 fact, that they had been spanked far more frequently
5 than you thought and after you thought Tom had 02:21PM

6 stopped; did you have some meeting with Tom?

7 A I saw Tom on occasions but I don't -- I don't
8 remember.
9 Q In your letter you said -- this is the letter
10 of December 7th, 2000. You said our hearts are 02:21PM

11 grieved at not listening to our children more

12 closely at the time and making the mistake of not
13 letting at least our elders know. You wrote that.
14 So it's pretty certain then that you never notified
15 Rich or Shorty in 2000 of what your children were 02:21PM

16 telling you in that detail. In December writing to

17 council you regretted not telling them, right, not
18 telling the elders; right? Are you following me?
19 A No.
20 Q What I read you is a sentence from your letter 02:22PM

21 on December 7th.
22 A Yes.
23 Q Where your hearts are grieved for not
24 listening to our children more closely at the time;
25 that's a given; right; you really felt terrible 02:22PM
 Page 213

1 about that?
2 A True.
3 Q And, and, making the mistake of not letting at
4 least our elders know. So in December you were
5 saying you had not let the elders know about the 02:22PM

6 details of Tom spanking your children the way they

7 said they had been spanked and after he promised you
8 he wouldn't spank them at all; you didn't tell the
9 elders?
10 A This was in 1999. 02:22PM

11 Q True, but this letter is December 7th, 2000?

12 A True.
13 Q It's leading up to this church council, and in
14 this letter you are saying you didn't tell the
15 elders? 02:22PM

16 A Until we had that meeting that you were saying

17 that I didn't put in the letter.
18 Q Well, right. So at that point, what I'm
19 trying to focus on, is you said here today being
20 questioned by Miss Eazer that there was a meeting 02:23PM

21 that you remember at the church office with your

22 wife and Rich Howe and Tom?
23 A True.
24 Q And here you are saying we didn't tell our
25 elders at that point, and what I'm suggesting is 02:23PM
 Page 214

1 because that meeting never took place.

2 A It did.
3 Q Okay. Do you have an explanation for why you
4 didn't mention it in your letter to the church
5 council? 02:23PM

6 A There were a lot of things and a lot of

7 feelings going on at that time and that letter was
8 done at the request of the council.
9 Q Right.
10 A So that's what we did. 02:23PM

11 Q But you took it seriously and tried to give

12 them four pages of your best recollection of
13 everything important that happened; right?
14 A True.
15 Q And you said in the letter that your hearts 02:23PM

16 were grieving in part because you made the mistake

17 of not letting at least the elders know. That's
18 what you said. I mean, you took it another step
19 further. You didn't say anything about the meeting
20 with the elder, Rich Howe, but you said we didn't 02:24PM

21 even tell them; we didn't let them know?

22 A John, I have a lot of regret.
23 Q I have no doubt about that, sir. I fully
24 appreciate that. But my question is, that's what
25 you wrote at the time because it was true; right? 02:24PM
 Page 215

1 A As much as I could remember at that time, yes,

2 and maybe I did forget something.
3 Q Again, just a couple of months after it
4 happened as opposed to remembering 18 years or
5 nearly 18 years later. I'm not going to ask it 02:24PM

6 again, but one would expect your memory in December

7 of 2000 is different than your memory today; right?
8 A True.
9 Q And almost certainly better then than your
10 memory today? 02:24PM

11 A True.
12 Q Okay. Now, at some point in mid December, not
13 long after you wrote this letter to the council at
14 their request, you and your wife and your two
15 children went to a place to meet with the council 02:24PM

16 members to be interviewed; right?

17 A True.
18 Q And that was Rich Howe's house?
19 A Correct.
20 Q And you had been to Rich's house before I 02:25PM

21 imagine; right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q We haven't, so if you could just give us an
24 idea of the layout of the house, how many floors and
25 where you and your family went first to wait to be 02:25PM
 Page 216

1 interviewed. How did you do that in the house?

2 Were you upstairs, downstairs, different rooms?
3 A The families were upstairs and then it's two
4 story, and the kids were interviewed by the council
5 downstairs. 02:25PM

6 Q In a bedroom perhaps?
7 A They have a large bedroom downstairs that has
8 been a bedroom. It's been a number of things that
9 they've had there.
10 Q And so can you describe the upstairs of the 02:25PM

11 Howe house a little bit? Is it broke into small

12 rooms or larger rooms; where did you all go?
13 A It has a dining-living room that we sat and
14 waited while the interview was going on.
15 Q Right, and then the council -- was there 02:26PM

16 somebody shuttling between the council people

17 downstairs in the bedroom and the family upstairs to
18 say now we're ready to talk to W or --
19 A Ted Tripp.
20 Q So he's one of the council members? 02:26PM

21 A True.
22 Q So he would come up and say can we talk to so
23 and so and that would happen; right?
24 A True.
25 Q And the children were interviewed separately 02:26PM
 Page 217

1 from you and your wife; right?

2 A True.
3 Q And they were interviewed separately from each
4 other?
5 A As I remember. 02:26PM

6 Q Okay, and were you and your wife interviewed

7 together or separately?
8 A With them, I believe it was separate and
9 together.
10 Q Started out -- 02:26PM

11 A I don't remember.
12 Q I'm sorry.
13 A It's been a long time ago.
14 Q Yes, it was, and do you remember when you were
15 upstairs in the living-dining room area waiting 02:26PM

16 whether other families from the church were also

17 there at various times?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Who else was there?
20 A The L r family and the J family I 02:26PM

21 think. I don't think -- no. Actually I don't

22 remember if they were there or not, but I know
23 L were there, Rich and Susan and us, Mike
24 McKnight, Ted Tripp and Pastor Jenson.
25 Q Those were the council members, the last? 02:27PM
 Page 218

1 A Yes.
2 Q And who in the L family? The L
3 family is a pretty big outfit. Who in the L
4 family do you remember being there?
5 A I remember C S and C A being 02:27PM

6 there.
7 Q C A is H 's mother?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Okay, and was D L there?
10 A Yes. 02:27PM

11 Q Okay. J L ?
12 A I don't remember.
13 Q Any other L hangers-on?
14 A I don't remember.
15 Q And think about whether the J s were there. 02:27PM

16 I know you first said and then you weren't so sure.

17 A It's been a long time ago, John.
18 Q Of course it was, but can you think now for
19 just a moment and just try to call up that image
20 being in the Howe living room up on the second floor 02:28PM

21 if the J s were there at any point.

22 MS. EAZER: Objection, asked and answered.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 Q (By Mr. Sears) Did your kids interact with
25 D L ? He was their friend; right? 02:28PM
 Page 219

1 A Yes.
2 Q Were they talking to D L and all
3 present, the adults and children all at the same
4 time?
5 A Yes. 02:28PM

6 Q Did the kids go off on their own at all for a

7 minute?
8 A I don't remember.
9 Q They were young; right; they were now nine and
10 eleven, your kids? 02:28PM

11 A True.
12 Q And D L was right in that age group?
13 A He was a little older, a couple years older
14 than J .
15 Q Maybe twelve or thirteen at that point? 02:28PM

16 A Thirteen.
17 Q But they were all friends; they had known each
18 other for a long time?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Do you remember them talking or visiting 02:28PM

21 together while you and C S and C A

22 were there?
23 A I don't remember.
24 Q Did you and your wife talk to the two L
25 women? 02:29PM
 Page 220

1 A Oh, I'm sure we did but I don't remember

2 specifically.
3 Q And everybody knew why everybody else was
4 there?
5 A Yes. 02:29PM

6 Q This wasn't just a random encounter?

7 A True.
8 Q Everybody was there for a reason; correct?
9 A True.
10 Q And you told us earlier today that your 02:29PM

11 takeaway from this church council was that you were

12 sure that Tom would not be around or work around
13 children again; is that right?
14 A True.
15 Q And the second part was that he would just 02:29PM

16 never be a pastor again; this is some sort of a

17 lifetime ban?
18 A As we understood it.
19 Q Where did that information come from; who told
20 you that? 02:29PM

21 A The council.
22 Q During your meeting with them?
23 A It was after they brought together their
24 findings.
25 Q That same day or a different day? 02:29PM
 Page 221

1 A It was a different day.

2 Q There was a meeting someplace else?
3 A I believe so. I believe we may have met at
4 the church but I can't remember, John. It's been a
5 long time ago. 02:30PM

6 Q You think there was a second session on some

7 level with your family and the council members after
8 this meeting at Rich Howe's house to be interviewed.
9 Do you have some recollection there was another
10 session? 02:30PM

11 A Yes.
12 Q And did the three members announce to you and
13 your family that this is how it was going to come
14 out, that Tom was never going to be a pastor again;
15 is that essentially what happened? 02:30PM

16 A There was basically a letter that was given to

17 us.
18 Q Okay. You got some documents from the church
19 council that appeared to be signed by Tom and the
20 elders and other people; is that what you got? 02:30PM

21 A Well, it's a letter. I can't remember who all

22 signed it.
23 Q But it was represented to you that this was
24 sort of this -- whatever this letter was was the
25 resolution that everybody in the council agreed? 02:30PM
 Page 222

1 A Somewhat.
2 Q And did the council explain it to you in
3 detail, go through it with you and explain what all
4 of it meant or just leave you to read it?
5 A No. They did discuss things with us. 02:31PM

6 Q Okay. Did you have some understanding that

7 Tom -- I think you said this today -- that Tom had
8 things that he was going to do that were
9 recommendations, things that he would do after he
10 left Miller Valley? 02:31PM

11 A True.
12 Q Counseling and those sort of things? Was
13 there any question about whether the things he was
14 supposed to do was in connection with whether he
15 would ever try again to be a pastor; did you have 02:31PM

16 that understanding?
17 A I don't remember.
18 Q And moving ahead a little bit, I'm a little
19 confused about when you next had a conversation with
20 any of the elders in the church about Tom. When do 02:31PM

21 you think that was? If this was in December of

22 2000, were there constant conversations after that
23 about Tom or was there a gap in time before the
24 subject of Tom Chantry ever came up between you and
25 the elders? 02:32PM
 Page 223

1 A We were still dealing with a lot of what had

2 happened after the fact, so there were other
3 situations and other times that we did talk to the
4 elders.
5 Q Okay. 02:32PM

6 A And it wasn't necessarily a structured meeting

7 but --
8 Q It's a pretty small church. I know you had --
9 A Fifty people.
10 Q You had a lot -- 02:32PM

11 A Plus or minus.
12 Q I'm sorry. I'm stepping all over your
13 answers. I apologize. At some point a pastor named
14 Randy came in to replace Tom; right?
15 A True. 02:32PM

16 Q And he was there for a few years; correct?

17 A True.
18 Q And then he left and Chris Marley, the elder,
19 became the senior pastor at the church; right?
20 A True. 02:32PM

21 Q That would have been maybe 2009; does that

22 sound about right?
23 A Earlier.
24 Q Okay, and his son Chris Junior, whom you know
25 well, came at some point to be the associate pastor 02:32PM
 Page 224

1 with his father as a senior pastor; is that right?

2 A True.
3 Q And then at some point a few years later
4 Chris, the elder, became mayor of Chino Valley?
5 A True. 02:33PM

6 Q And so there was sort of a shuffle at Miller

7 Valley and because he was going to be occupied with
8 Chino Valley business, his son, Chris Junior, became
9 the senior pastor but the father stayed involved all
10 along; is that what happened? 02:33PM

11 A True.
12 Q All right, and do you remember a time after
13 Chris Junior became the senior pastor in maybe 2012,
14 somewhere in there, another series of discussions
15 inside the church about Tom Chantry? 02:33PM

16 A I don't remember.
17 Q Okay. That topic wasn't on your to-do list;
18 if there were other people in the church who were
19 having conversations about Tom Chantry, that wasn't
20 anything that directly involved you in 2012? 02:33PM

21 A I don't know what you're talking about.

22 Q If I told you that we've heard some testimony
23 that in about 2012 Chris Junior was contacted by
24 someone he knew about Tom wanting to know if
25 something could be done to help reconcile these 02:34PM
 Page 225

1 unresolved issues between Tom and the families. Did

2 you know anything about that in 2012?
3 A No.
4 Q Okay. So then in 2015 did you become aware at
5 some point that Tom Chantry was back as a pastor in 02:34PM

6 the church in some other place?

7 A I heard about it but there were other
8 situations going on.
9 Q That were more immediate?
10 A Well, ARBCA was going through some tension but 02:34PM

11 I didn't know necessarily that Tom had become a

12 pastor until there was a discussion that was had but
13 that wasn't the topic of the discussion.
14 Q Were these tensions that you heard about in
15 your mind related in any way to Tom Chantry at 02:35PM

16 ARBCA?
17 A Possibly some of it.
18 Q Did you hear at some time in 2015 that Tom
19 Chantry had actually applied at ARBCA to have his
20 church in Wisconsin admitted as a member? 02:35PM

21 A I don't remember the dates but I did hear

22 something about that, yes.
23 Q And did you have a sense of what Miller Valley
24 Baptist Church's position would be if they had one,
25 about Tom being a pastor and attempting to get his 02:35PM
 Page 226

1 church into ARBCA?

2 A Re -- just say that again, please.
3 Q Were you aware of some position that the
4 church you were attending, Miller Valley Baptist
5 Church, might have taken in 2015 or so about the 02:35PM

6 related questions of Tom being a pastor at all and

7 Tom applying on behalf of his new church for
8 membership in ARBCA; did you become aware of that?
9 A I became aware of that.
10 Q Were you involved at all in any of the 02:36PM

11 discussions about what the church's official

12 position would be?
13 A I didn't have any discussions about the
14 position that the church would have. I had my
15 feelings. 02:36PM

16 Q You thought it was a bad idea?

17 A I did.
18 Q Okay, and you thought that Tom had not -- had
19 agreed essentially not to pastor and here he was
20 being a pastor again; correct? 02:36PM

21 A True.
22 Q So that was disturbing to you; right?
23 A True.
24 Q And you also thought that if that were the
25 case, Tom had no business being accepted as a pastor 02:36PM
 Page 227

1 of a church as a member of ARBCA; that just seemed

2 wrong to you; right?
3 A It did.
4 Q Okay, and you weren't alone apparently at the
5 church in that position; right? 02:36PM

6 A True.
7 Q You knew that the leadership, that the elders
8 now which were Rich and Shorty and Chris, the elder,
9 and Chris, the younger, all of them collectively
10 opposed Tom's ARBCA application on behalf of his 02:37PM

11 church; you knew that, right?

12 A Well, yes.
13 Q Did you find out sometime in 2016 that despite
14 Miller Valley Church's objection, ARBCA had decided
15 to admit Tom's church as a member? 02:37PM

16 A Somewhere in there.
17 Q Okay, and were you aware, as I'm sure you
18 were, that very shortly after that happened that
19 Tom's church was accepted, Miller Valley Church
20 after years of membership resigned from ARBCA? 02:37PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q Did you agree with that move?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And that resignation was certainly a protest,
25 wasn't it, protesting ARBCA's actions allowing Tom 02:37PM
 Page 228

1 Chantry's church to be a member; that was why Miller

2 Valley resigned; right?
3 A Not my words.
4 Q They had no other reason to resign other than
5 that, did they? 02:38PM

6 A They disagreed with it.

7 Q That single issue?
8 A More than that.
9 Q Right?
10 A Yes. 02:38PM

11 Q The way Tom Chantry was being treated by ARBCA

12 didn't sit right with Miller Valley; correct?
13 A True.
14 Q Did Tom Chantry ever come to your home at any
15 time before he left to apologize, ask forgiveness or 02:38PM

16 do anything of the kind?

17 A No.
18 Q Did you ever meet with him?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you ask to meet with him? 02:38PM

21 A Other than the meeting that we had at the

22 church that I told you about, no.
23 Q In that meeting that you remember at the
24 church, was it your understanding that you were --
25 that it was being set up by Rich Howe for purposes 02:38PM
 Page 229

1 of Tom apologizing and seeking forgiveness from you

2 and your wife?
3 A Yes, as I remember.
4 Q I think you said -- I can't remember exactly
5 but I got the impression that you were saying it was 02:39PM

6 an attempt -- in your mind Rich Howe was attempting

7 to work out this new dispute between you and your
8 wife and Tom; trying to help reconcile that; was
9 that your impression?
10 A As I remember, he brought us together for a 02:39PM

11 couple of reasons but that was maybe one of them.

12 Q Okay, but you don't remember Tom saying
13 anything at all about apologizing or seeking
14 forgiveness?
15 A He may have apologized then but that was 02:39PM

16 before what the council had also stated.

17 Q But in this meeting with you where Tom may
18 have apologized, did you accept his apology and
19 forgive him?
20 A I don't remember. As best we could. 02:39PM

21 Q Thank you.
22 MR. SEARS: I have no other questions.
23 THE COURT: Redirect, please.
24 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
25 BY MS. EAZER: 02:40PM
 Page 230

1 Q Mr. W , I want to kind of go over the

2 timeline and the letter you wrote to the church.
3 Mr. Sears read a portion or quoted some of the
4 letter. You indicated that the letter, when you
5 wrote the letter, your memory may have been a little 02:40PM

6 clearer than today because it was written closer in

7 time?
8 A True.
9 Q So in the letter you talk about you were sorry
10 you didn't go to the elders right away. When were 02:40PM

11 you speaking of in the letter that you didn't go to

12 the elders right away?
13 A After we found out our kids had been spanked,
14 after we had not -- after we had the discussion
15 about discipline and then afterwards finding out 02:40PM

16 that my kids did get spanked and then going and

17 talking to him after my wife had said you've got to
18 go do something.
19 Q Let's break that down.
20 A Okay. 02:41PM

21 Q You told this jury that you had your kids --

22 you agreed to have Tom babysit your kids in the
23 summer of 1999; right?
24 A Correct.
25 Q And almost right away the kids came to you and 02:41PM
 Page 231

1 said they got spanked?

2 A True.
3 Q And you confronted Tom about that?
4 A I did.
5 Q And your wife was not happy about it at all; 02:41PM

6 correct?
7 A True.
8 Q Did you go to the elders then?
9 A No.
10 Q All right. You allowed the kids to still 02:41PM

11 continue to be babysat for the rest of the summer?

12 A True.
13 Q Just so we're very clear about the context of
14 what Mr. Sears was referring to in the letter, I'm
15 going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 56 02:41PM

16 and ask you to turn -- I think your letter is I

17 think almost page -- well, it's not got a page
18 number. I think yours is about that far in. Let me
19 see here if I can kind of help you out. It's a
20 little bit further in. I think that might be it. 02:42PM

21 Right there. Now, just so we're very clear, sir, in

22 that second to the last paragraph, very last couple
23 of lines, do you in fact specifically refer to you
24 were sorry that you didn't go forward right away
25 after that first spanking? 02:43PM
 Page 232

1 A Yes.
2 Q And that because you didn't go forward right
3 away, your kids suffered some more and D L
4 suffered some more?
5 A Yes. 02:43PM

6 MR. SEARS: Objection, foundation, use of

7 this letter not in evidence. Same objection as
8 earlier.
9 THE COURT: Sustained.
10 MR. SEARS: Thank you. 02:43PM

11 Q (By Ms. Eazer) Sir, when Mr. Sears asked you

12 about not going forward to the elders, were you
13 talking about in 2000 when you found out about D
14 L or were you talking about in '99 when you
15 found out about the first spanking? 02:43PM

16 A '99.
17 Q All right, and when you found out about D
18 L , when it came to light that D L
19 had -- there had been something that happened with
20 D L , did you immediately go to the elders? 02:43PM

21 A Yes.
22 Q All right, and was it after that that you had
23 this meeting?
24 A Yes.
25 Q All right. Now, as far as when you learned 02:43PM
 Page 233

1 about your son's bare bottom -- I didn't ask you

2 anything about what your son said or what you knew
3 about D but Mr. Sears asked you when your son
4 told you he was bare-bottomed spanked and you told
5 this jury that you had a meeting with the defendant 02:44PM

6 before he left; is that correct?

7 A True.
8 Q And you confronted him about bare-bottomed
9 spanking?
10 A Yes. 02:44PM

11 Q And at the time you confronted the defendant

12 with bare-bottomed spanking, you said you weren't
13 yet aware that your son was bare-bottom spanked?
14 A Say that again.
15 Q At the time you confronted the defendant 02:44PM

16 before he left Prescott for good --

17 A Right.
18 Q -- I think you told Mr. Sears you weren't
19 aware yet whether your son had been bare-bottomed
20 spanked? 02:44PM

21 A From what we understood, he had been.

22 Q All right, and were you aware at the time you
23 confronted the defendant and asked him whether he
24 had spanked your son bare bottomed, were you aware
25 that there were allegations that he had done that 02:44PM
 Page 234

1 with D L , sir?
2 A I don't remember.
3 Q All right, but do you recall, based on
4 whatever it was you knew before that meeting that
5 you had with the defendant before he left town, that 02:45PM

6 you asked him about whether he had done that to your

7 son?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Any question in your mind you asked him about
10 that, sir? 02:45PM

11 A No.
12 Q All right, and that he denied it?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Mr. Sears asked you if you saw any marks on
15 your kids. Did you -- your kids were eight and ten 02:45PM

16 years old. Did you bathe them, sir?

17 A No.
18 Q Did you regularly help them get dressed?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you check their bottoms for marks on a 02:45PM

21 regular basis?
22 A No.
23 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
24 A No.
25 Q Mr. Sears asked you if the defendant 02:45PM
 Page 235

1 apologized to you. Do you recall what he apologized

2 for as you sit here today?
3 A From what I remember, he did apologize for
4 treating the kids like he did.
5 Q All right. Do you remember him saying 02:46PM

6 anything about apologizing for spanking the kids

7 without your permission?
8 A Yes.
9 Q All right. Did he -- again he never admitted
10 spanking them with objects? 02:46PM

11 A True.
12 Q Never admitted doing it bare bottomed?
13 A No.
14 Q Never admitted causing marks?
15 A True. 02:46PM

16 Q Did he ever apologize to your children?

17 A No.
18 Q Did you feel like after that meeting,
19 satisfied that Tom had told you what he did to your
20 kids? 02:46PM

21 A No.
22 Q And at the time when you confronted him, did
23 you know all that you then later learned had
24 happened with this defendant and a number of
25 children? 02:47PM
 Page 236

1 A No.
2 Q You were asked a lot of questions by Mr. Sears
3 about conversations that may have occurred between
4 you and Eric and Rich when -- and Pastor Marley when
5 the defendant was applying for membership at ARBCA. 02:47PM

6 As you sit here today, Mr. W , does the fact

7 that -- is what you are here testifying about today
8 as far as what happened with your kids, do you see
9 it in any way related to whether this man got into
10 ARBCA or not? 02:47PM

11 A No.
12 Q Do you even care about ARBCA and whether he
13 got into ARBCA or not?
14 A No.
15 Q Were you concerned about the safety of other 02:47PM

16 children?
17 A Absolutely.
18 Q Thank you, sir.
19 MS. EAZER: No further questions.
20 THE COURT: Questions for this witness from 02:47PM

21 the jury? I see none. May this witness be excused?

22 MR. SEARS: Yes, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Thank you. I'll take that from
24 you. Thank you, sir. You can step down, sir.
25 Does the State have any additional witnesses? 02:48PM
 Page 237

1 MS. EAZER: Subject to rebuttal, the State

2 would rest at this time, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Thank you. Ladies and
4 Gentlemen, the State has rested its case-in-chief at
5 this time. I need to take a few moments to talk 02:48PM

6 with the attorneys and also have some technical

7 equipment to set up. So let's take our break a
8 little bit earlier. So remember the admonition and
9 we'll come back with the defense case.
10 (Whereupon, the jury exited the
11 courtroom.)
12 THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. Please be
13 seated. Do you have a motion?
14 MR. SEARS: Your Honor, I have a series of
15 Rule 20 motions for judgment of acquittal and I have 02:49PM

16 an exhibit or two that I would like to be able to

17 display up here. I think when Brian comes back,
18 there's a switch somewhere near you that would fire
19 up this overhead projector. Looks like we're
20 already also logged on to play our video. 02:49PM

21 THE COURT: It should be set up. That

22 should be turned on. It has to turn on.
23 MR. SEARS: Here it is.
24 THE COURT: Move the smaller lights out of
25 the way. 02:50PM
 Page 238

1 MR. SEARS: I think I need to zoom in a

2 bit. Can the court see that?
3 THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead.
4 MR. SEARS: Your Honor, the defendant at
5 this point, at the close of the State's case 02:50PM

6 pursuant to Rule 20(a)(1), moves for judgment of

7 acquittal on each of the counts in the indictment
8 and with the court's permission, what I'd like to do
9 is move through my arguments count by count in this
10 case. The rule currently in effect, this is the 02:51PM

11 modified version that went into effect January 1,

12 2018, making the substantive change about whether it
13 needed to be renewed or whether you can make a
14 motion the first time after conviction in this case.
15 That's the amendment down below. A version of this 02:51PM

16 rule has been in effect for many, many years.

17 The case law describing this rule says that
18 the question is further defined as whether a
19 rational trier of fact would view this evidence as
20 sufficient to convict the defendant on the charge in 02:51PM

21 the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. That's

22 been the case law for decades, interpreting
23 provisions that were somewhat different in the rule
24 going back many, many years, but that's still the
25 law and still the test that the court I know 02:51PM
 Page 239

1 realizes applies in this case.

2 So looking at Count 1 of the indictment, which
3 is the count charging the defendant with molesting
4 J E , the principal problem that we think
5 remains after the State's evidence is closed in this 02:52PM

6 case has to do with the timeline in the indictment.

7 The court had the clerk read an amended indictment
8 at the start of the case to the jury that expanded
9 after the State successfully moved to amend the
10 indictment pretrial running from January 1, 2000, 02:52PM

11 through November 10th, 2000, as being the time

12 period within which the charged conduct takes place.
13 There was no 404(b) or (c) evidence related to this
14 charge. So the State's burden is to prove beyond a
15 reasonable doubt that this single act of molestation 02:52PM

16 took place in that time period, and two witnesses

17 testified for the State in their case-in-chief as to
18 the timing of this event, the alleged victim, J
19 E , and his mother, H L E . We
20 took careful note of what she said on cross 02:53PM

21 examination when she testified in this case on

22 August 1, and I have had a partial transcript
23 prepared. I sent a copy to the State. I have a
24 copy of the entire cross examination for the court
25 if it becomes important, but I wanted to focus this 02:53PM
 Page 240

1 afternoon on two pages out of that partial

2 transcript, which are my questioning of H
3 E about when J reported these events
4 happened and what her recollection was.
5 So beginning at Page 43 of the partial 02:53PM

6 transcript, this is my cross examination. Line 2 I

7 asked, now, did J say that this happened when he
8 was four? Answer, he didn't say. Question, just
9 little? Answer, yes. And then the next few
10 questions are going into the argument that I know 02:53PM

11 the court has heard me make on more than one

12 occasion that if this happened when he was four on
13 September 20th, 2000, then the events were required
14 to be in a pretty short six-week window of time
15 between his fourth birthday on September 20th, 2000, 02:54PM

16 and the date that everyone seems to agree that the

17 defendant left Prescott forever, September 10th --
18 I'm sorry, November 10th, 2000. So you can see
19 these next few questions are of J 's mother asking
20 her about this six-week gap, but then we go back on 02:54PM

21 Page 44 of my cross examination to the question of

22 what J actually said about his age and when this
23 happened. So on Page 44 at Line 6 I say, right, I'm
24 just trying to look at the time period. If you
25 assume that J was four when this happened. 02:55PM
 Page 241

1 Answer, I don't assume anything. I don't know when

2 it happened. And then I go back to this argument
3 about the window related to his birthday, and she
4 agrees with me at Line 17 and 18 that it happened
5 before then, then being November 8th, 2000. Then 02:55PM

6 the next question dealing with his age is at Line 19

7 on Page 44. I ask if it happened after he was four,
8 it had to be between his birthday and November 8th,
9 do you see what I'm saying, had to be in that window
10 there; right? Answer, I don't know what August he 02:55PM

11 was -- Question, right. Answer, I don't know.

12 So here is the state of the evidence at this
13 point which the rational trier of fact would have to
14 use and evaluate to determine whether the State had
15 met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt of proving 02:55PM

16 the time frame. Elsewhere in the law and the

17 Standard Jury Instruction No. 11, there was a
18 comment in the 4th Edition which talks about Arizona
19 adopting the idea that multiple acts, and we'll talk
20 about this in more detail in the other counts, 02:56PM

21 multiple acts require the jury to agree beyond a

22 reasonable doubt as to which act it is that is
23 alleged to be the charged conduct. In this single
24 count indictment that we're talking about, Count 1
25 of the indictment, the jury was read an indictment 02:56PM
 Page 242

1 that says January 1, 2000 to November 10th, 2000 as

2 the window, and now you have the defendant's mother
3 reporting two things, that J did not tell her
4 when he reported this molest, when it happened, just
5 that he was little. That's the answer on Page 43 02:56PM

6 and making it clear in two subsequent answers that

7 she does not know when it happened. So the jury
8 would have to take that evidence, plus J 's
9 testimony, which the court will remember was I don't
10 know how old I was, I think I was four but I can't 02:57PM

11 be sure either, and take that evidence and say

12 beyond a reasonable doubt there's been proof
13 presented to them thus far in the case that puts
14 this conduct somewhere in that January to November
15 2000 time range. 02:57PM

16 What occurred to us after we heard the

17 testimony and what this transcript makes us think
18 further is that it may well be that the defendant
19 was older than four at the time this happened. He
20 may have been four and a half; he may have been 02:57PM

21 five. All the mother can say is he was little. She

22 does not know when it happened. Everyone agrees
23 that if it happened after November 10th, 2000, it
24 could not have been the defendant, and that is the
25 particular problem that is teed up by this evidence. 02:57PM
 Page 243

1 So in addition to the jury having to decide

2 whether it was potentially even earlier than January
3 1, 2000 -- you remember my cross examination of J
4 E saying could you have been even younger and
5 him saying I don't know. You have his mother 02:58PM

6 offering absolutely no help and saying I don't know

7 either; he was just little; that's all I know; I
8 don't know if he was four; I don't know if he was
9 younger than four; I don't know if he was younger
10 than three and I don't know if he was older than 02:58PM

11 four and six months or six weeks when this could

12 have happened.
13 So we think as a matter of law and a matter of
14 Rule 20 jurisprudence, that the State has failed to
15 meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt 02:58PM

16 to establish that a complained of act, the charged

17 count as to J E happened in the time frame
18 presented to this jury. The State may well argue,
19 as they have in other instances, that Rule 13.5 of
20 Rules of Criminal Procedure somehow authorizes the 02:59PM

21 court to allow them to amend on the fly, now again

22 to change the charged conduct dates to some other
23 date, maybe now going past this, earlier, we don't
24 know. I would suggest that, as I've said before,
25 Rule 13.5 was always intended and the case law makes 02:59PM
 Page 244

1 this clear, always intended to allow amendments to

2 conform to facts with respect to technical matters,
3 to correct obvious typographical errors, errors of
4 transposition in numbers, things like that, not to
5 make a substantive change in the charge. If that 02:59PM

6 were permitted, two things occur to me, and one is

7 every prosecutor would present a case to the Grand
8 Jury saying that sometime between the beginning of
9 time and today these events happened and so they
10 would have this infinite expanse of time to then 02:59PM

11 argue that we don't know for sure but it happened

12 sometime between the creation of this planet and
13 today, and it also permits the prosecutors to
14 continue to move the goalposts, that at least they
15 moved at pretrial, to push back the start date from 03:00PM

16 J 's fourth birthday back to a time when he was

17 three years and three months old, January 1, 2000,
18 but I would submit it's a violation of due process
19 to even consider another amendment to make some
20 further change going back to birth or something like 03:00PM

21 that. I'm certain that the prosecution would not

22 want to amend the indictment to charge this happened
23 after November 10th, 2000, because they know full
24 well that the evidence would be that the defendant
25 was not available and had no access to this child 03:00PM
 Page 245

1 after that date.

2 So the question remains, has the State
3 presented substantial evidence under Rule 20 that
4 constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt of when
5 this event happened. I would submit the testimony 03:01PM

6 of H E so clouds and muddles that

7 question and leaves open the possibility of any
8 construct that it could have happened when he was
9 two years old or five years old that a defendant is
10 entitled to judgment of acquittal at this point in 03:01PM

11 the State's case.

12 In addition, there's some obvious problems
13 with this count that go to the proof. The
14 identification of the defendant by J E was
15 indisputably tainted by his mother showing him the 03:01PM

16 picture of the defendant in a business suit and

17 insisting that he, J , insists that was the one.
18 If that was a police identification, I suspect the
19 court would strongly leans towards suppressing the
20 identification because of the subjectivity and the 03:01PM

21 taint that the mother interjected into his

22 identification of the defendant.
23 Finally, none of the witnesses, neither J
24 nor H , could explain in any way how J came
25 to be alone with the defendant or when that 03:02PM
 Page 246

1 occurred. The most they could say is he had access;

2 he had opportunity. That's not proof beyond a
3 reasonable doubt. They tried -- at one time they
4 thought they were going to call J 's grandmother
5 to be a witness, that she was the church secretary. 03:02PM

6 They abandoned that before trial when they

7 discovered that that's not what she could say. She
8 could not say with any certainty that she was even
9 the church secretary in 2000 when this is alleged to
10 have happened. 03:02PM

11 So the State elected to proceed with this

12 count with this time frame. They amended the time
13 frame to try and mitigate the problem created by
14 this six-week window if J truly was four because
15 we knew when he was four and we knew when the 03:02PM

16 defendant left, but in doing so, they adduced this

17 testimony from J 's mother that would just on its
18 face prevent the jury from understanding and being
19 able to conclude, as they must, that the State has
20 met its burden as to when this case happened. 03:03PM

21 If you'd like me to continue through the

22 arguments or if you want to consider ruling as we
23 go --
24 THE COURT: Keep going, please.
25 MR. SEARS: Thank you. Let's look at 03:03PM
 Page 247

1 Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5, the M J counts, if we

2 could. The issue in this case regarding the
3 timeline is a different issue but it's still
4 substantial. At the same time the State moved to
5 amend pretrial Count 1 that we've just discussed to 03:03PM

6 expand backwards in time the window for the offense

7 to have occurred, they looked at Count 6 of the
8 indictment, the Wy W count, and realized that
9 because there was permissible 404(b) evidence, they
10 needed somehow to delineate for the jury which act 03:03PM

11 that was being described by the witnesses was the

12 charged conduct. So with the court's permission,
13 they amended the indictment to add the to-wit
14 language to narrow down and specify that that was a
15 count related to an event that took place when the 03:04PM

16 defendant's sister was watching. It creates other

17 problems, but that was the way the State attempted
18 to solve the dilemma created by mixing the evidence
19 on the 404(b) acts with the evidence of the charged
20 conduct. I was waiting for the State to make a 03:04PM

21 similar motion with respect to the J counts

22 frankly, and I was surprised somewhat that they
23 didn't do that because this court not only allowed
24 the 404(b) evidence that we've heard in this case
25 about the spankings but also allowed under Garner 03:04PM
 Page 248

1 and 404(c) evidence of other sex acts by the

2 defendant with M J . The defendant -- the
3 indictment that was read to the jury has a discrete
4 time period. Each count was alleged to have
5 happened within one calendar month. Count 2 was 03:04PM

6 October. Count 3 was November. Count 4 was

7 December of 1995. And the last count was extended
8 out into January of 1996, and you heard the
9 testimony from the defendant, much of it I think
10 pretty classic script. 03:05PM

11 THE COURT: From Mr. J you mean?

12 MR. SEARS: What did I say?
13 THE COURT: From the defendant.
14 MR. SEARS: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Mr.
15 J . 03:05PM

16 THE COURT: That's okay.

17 MR. SEARS: That really amounted to script
18 memory every time this happened. I was molested.
19 Here comes another timeline problem. There was
20 considerable confusion among the three people that 03:05PM

21 testified about this: M J 's parents, L

22 and L J , and M J himself. L
23 J and M J seemed to have great difficulty
24 putting brackets around this conduct. They
25 struggled, particularly L J struggled, about 03:06PM
 Page 249

1 when the tutoring started that led to the spankings

2 that led to the molest. M was more certain that
3 it happened at the beginning of school year '95-'96
4 but both L and M could not tell the jury,
5 despite repeated efforts to put an end date, when 03:06PM

6 the tutoring ended. They recounted a sleepover that

7 took place. M J said it was during Christmas
8 break. He thought it was Christmas break '95-'96
9 but it would have been in January, the sleepover,
10 and that's when the first skin-to-skin molest took 03:06PM

11 place. He said there were other molests that took

12 place in '95 that were over the clothing. L
13 J couldn't even get close to that timeline and
14 wasn't sure at all whether or not the tutoring
15 stopped in the spring of 1996 or whether it 03:06PM

16 continued on later.
17 But then you have L J , and the court,
18 I'm sure, will remember L J 's testimony
19 well. She offered a coherent evidence-based
20 scenario that said that the sleepover occurred on 03:07PM

21 January 11th of a certain year because that was her

22 son M 's birthday, but she remembered
23 specifically and she testified at length that there
24 was a planned trip to Phoenix to look at a house in
25 The Valley that the J family had just bought. 03:07PM
 Page 250

1 They were taking M for his birthday down to

2 see his new house, but they were persuaded to leave
3 M back in Prescott with the defendant to stay
4 overnight because he had a tutoring session
5 scheduled the next day and they thought they might 03:07PM

6 get back late at night and they didn't want to have

7 to pick up M late at night, and then L J
8 went on to further remember that they closed escrow
9 and bought this house later in January and that the
10 family moved in February of 1997. Eventually L 03:07PM

11 and M reluctantly signed on to the idea that they

12 moved to The Valley for good in February of 1997 but
13 M couldn't say when the tutoring ended; L
14 couldn't say when the tutoring ended, and L
15 offered a version that said, well, it seems like 03:08PM

16 whenever it started, it went on until sometime

17 shortly after Christmas on M 's birthday,
18 January 11th, 1997 and then we came back. We
19 complained. L had a meeting and met with Tom,
20 and it was agreed that the tutoring would shift from 03:08PM

21 Tom's office to their house, and it went on for a

22 period, which is consistent with this 1997 timeline.
23 In much the same way that the jury has no
24 substantial evidence to say with confidence beyond a
25 reasonable doubt that these acts occurred in the 03:08PM
 Page 251

1 charged time periods between October and January

2 1995 and January 1996, they now have this otherwise
3 coherent, logical, entirely consistent testimony
4 from M 's mother with a clear memory that in fact
5 it happened in 1997. I would submit that the -- if 03:09PM

6 the State wanted to expand the indictment now to

7 conform to this evidence, that would not be
8 consistent with Rule 13.5 to add this allegation,
9 which would not have been tested by a Grand Jury or
10 at a preliminary hearing for probable cause, but now 03:09PM

11 these events took place over a much greater year and

12 a half period as opposed to a few months in late
13 1995. In addition, the testimony from M J
14 about these events does not clearly establish
15 discrete events in October, November or December, 03:09PM

16 Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment, that the jury

17 could say unanimously that there was substantial
18 evidence to support a guilty verdict on each of
19 those months one count at a time.
20 So the State by not separating out the 404(b) 03:10PM

21 and 404(c) conduct, and particularly the 404(c)

22 conduct, and pigeonholing in the months alleged in
23 the indictment and because of this L J
24 totally different timeline, the State has failed to
25 meet its burden on Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 beyond a 03:10PM
 Page 252

1 reasonable doubt of establishing when these events

2 took place.
3 Finally, the story -- the stories that M
4 J told about each of these events indisputably
5 changed over time, 1995 or '96. When he first 03:10PM

6 reported being spanked, he was just being spanked.

7 In 2000 his letter to the church council added the
8 bare-bottomed spanking allegation. Sometime between
9 2000 and 2006 he says he talked to his parents about
10 this, but it's another place in time where clearly 03:11PM

11 he did not tell his parents that he had been

12 sexually molested.
13 In 2006 on a telephone call with the defendant
14 he again fails to say that he was sexually molested
15 but in 2006 for the first time after having told a 03:11PM

16 different story every time, he has this new

17 opportunity to tell a police officer and tells the
18 police officer this full-blown molestation story,
19 which goes to the Grand Jury and returns indictments
20 on the dates charged. That's just an additional 03:11PM

21 factor, but I think the principal problems with

22 Counts 2 through 5 is the timeline problems I've
23 just outlined.
24 Count 6 --
25 THE COURT: Before you get there, I'm going 03:11PM
 Page 253

1 to rule -- well, I have some questions for Ms. Eazer

2 concerning Counts 1 through 5.
3 I find the Rule 20 motion as it applies to
4 Count 1 is denied. I find there's substantial
5 evidence to support a conviction as to Count 1. 03:12PM

6 The Rule 20 motion as to Count 2 is also

7 similarly denied, and the Rule 20 motion as to Count
8 5 is similarly denied.
9 My questions which I'd like Miss Eazer to
10 address now concern Counts 3 and 4. I respectfully 03:12PM

11 disagree, Mr. Sears, in that Mr. J , M

12 J I should say, specifically did address
13 specific incidents and different incidents of
14 touching to include Counts 2 through 5. I can see a
15 potential problem with Counts 3 and 4, and here's 03:13PM

16 the problem that I see. As to Count 2, I believe

17 there was clear testimony from Mr. J as to when
18 that occurred. As to Count 5, I believe there is
19 clear testimony as to when that occurred. However,
20 concerning Counts 3 and 4, which pertain to 03:13PM

21 respectively touching during catechism and touching

22 during going over an essay, reviewing my notes again
23 and paying attention to this, I don't believe there
24 is testimony that Count 3 occurred in November and
25 Count 4 occurred in December. I don't know that we 03:13PM
 Page 254

1 had that type of specific testimony. So help me out

2 with that, Miss Eazer. Maybe I missed something,
3 but help me out as to Counts 3 and 4, please.
4 MS. EAZER: With respect to when catechism
5 began, M J testified that, you know, I 03:14PM

6 believe it was within a few weeks after the first

7 touching that they began regular catechism lessons
8 and then towards -- as the school year went on --
9 and I remember specifically asking him because I
10 wanted to set apart these incidents, you know, as 03:14PM

11 far as when he started doing essays and there was a

12 time when an essay was graded, and I believe he
13 talked about that was a little later in the semester
14 but it's before the bare bottom. So I was comparing
15 it to -- you know, I'm contrasting it to in January, 03:14PM

16 which is when the first time he was touched bare

17 bottom and skin to skin, and he said it was later
18 on, and I specifically -- because he said there were
19 multiple times that that type of behavior would
20 occur, I specifically asked him about first time he 03:15PM

21 remembered something as far as the grading of the

22 essays, first time he remembered something with
23 respect to the catechism lessons, and I specifically
24 did not go into details about any other times, but I
25 said were there other times that type of behavior 03:15PM
 Page 255

1 occurred so that I could set it apart from other act

2 type evidence.
3 THE COURT: I agree that there was
4 testimony about the first time, which would be Count
5 2. I agree there is testimony concerning the Count 03:15PM

6 5 time period because that would have been the under

7 the clothing incident and the testimony concerning
8 the time frames of same. I agree that there was
9 testimony that both the catechism came after the
10 first time and the essay came after that but before 03:15PM

11 the last time, but I don't know that it is as

12 specific as it is in the indictment.
13 MS. EAZER: Well, when we go to the months,
14 Judge, as far as school starting and he said it was
15 the second or third lesson that the first touching 03:16PM

16 occurs.
17 THE COURT: The first touching I'm with
18 you. The first touching you have in October. I
19 have no problem with that. My issue is there's no
20 testimony about November; there's no testimony about 03:16PM

21 December. There's testimony about things happening

22 between October '95 and January '96 but not
23 specifically.
24 MS. EAZER: So I think and again I'd have
25 to -- I remember asking the questions but I don't 03:16PM
 Page 256

1 have a transcript, but I will tell the court that if

2 you are looking at -- the first occasion would have
3 happened in October. Then I asked, you know, as
4 lessons went on, and I think I even specified how
5 much longer, you know, how much time elapsed before 03:16PM

6 you started doing catechism and he said a couple of

7 weeks and then they did catechism all the time, and
8 I said let's talk about the first time you did
9 catechism and then I said as the school year
10 progressed, did you start doing essays and he said 03:17PM

11 yes and that was after the catechism. So when I'm

12 looking at a three-month time span, I think it
13 progressively, you know, put it out a couple of
14 weeks each time, and I would also argue that as I
15 asked for an instruction and I've got case law ready 03:17PM

16 for the court that the on or about, it doesn't have

17 to be the specific month, but I think -- I'll order
18 the transcript, Judge, if you'd like me to order
19 that specific part but I tried to set it out.
20 THE COURT: Well, but you didn't and I was 03:17PM

21 looking for it and I was waiting for it and I think

22 you failed to do so. What you did do, and I agree
23 that you did, is laid it out in order. So I agree
24 that Count 2 is the first time. Count 5 is the
25 sleepover incident. I'm with you there. I agree 03:18PM
 Page 257

1 that the incident after the first time would be

2 catechism, and I agree, from the testimony, the
3 incident after catechism as charged would be the
4 essay incident for lack of a better term. But
5 that's not how things are charged. While it 03:18PM

6 happened afterwards, there's no testimony about

7 November specifically. While the essay occurred
8 after the catechism, there's no testimony that it
9 occurred in December specifically. So because you
10 raise specifics in Count 3 and Count 4, that's my 03:18PM

11 concern because we didn't have testimony as to those

12 particular incidents tied to a particular month. In
13 order, yes, but not a particular month. So why
14 isn't that a problem?
15 MS. EAZER: Well, one, it's not a problem 03:18PM

16 because I don't think the victim would have been

17 able to state a particular month and that's why we
18 talked about it going in progression and, again,
19 Judge, my recollection, because I was aware that I
20 needed to distinguish, is that I did say -- I did 03:19PM

21 have M testify not in terms of a month, I agree.

22 I wouldn't have been able to have him identify a
23 month because he really couldn't identify a month
24 other than when school started and when Christmas
25 break was, but I said something about weeks passing 03:19PM
 Page 258

1 for the catechism and then it started and then as

2 the school year progressed, did you start to do
3 essays, and so I think that there was a distinction
4 that these things kind of did go step by step as the
5 court said but beyond that, Judge, I again would 03:19PM

6 cite the court to, you know, the case law that says
7 that the actual date is not an element of the crime
8 and that the State doesn't have to prove that it
9 happened on the actual charge date but just a date
10 reasonably near the date charged in the indictment 03:19PM

11 and I have -- if the court wants me to cite the

12 cases that I have available for it. I also
13 requested that jury instruction and cited I think it
14 was Davis in the jury instruction, but I've got
15 three other case cites which all say the same thing, 03:20PM

16 that so long as it's reasonably near. So because we

17 have a four-month time span and the victim set forth
18 what happened first and what type of activity began
19 happening after that and then what type of activity
20 began happening after that and only described one 03:20PM

21 such specific incident so that it couldn't get mixed

22 in with other fact evidence or 404(c) evidence, the
23 argument the State would make to the court is that
24 the date, even if it's off a week or two, because
25 they are specific incidents, that there's still 03:20PM
 Page 259

1 sufficient evidence to go to the jury on those

2 counts.
3 THE COURT: What about the argument,
4 though, that the lack of to-wit also makes it
5 confusing? 03:21PM

6 MS. EAZER: And, Judge, again, that's kind

7 of why -- and I was going to suggest to the court
8 that we might need to do a to-wit for the catechism,
9 for the first time that -- when doing an essay or
10 grading an essay to make it clear. I tried to 03:21PM

11 really, really be specific about those in my

12 questioning of M and, again, with the exception
13 of after the bare-bottomed one in January, then I
14 said did that occur on a number of other occasions
15 because we definitely had the first time bare 03:21PM

16 bottomed but when I was talking about other times

17 over the clothing, I didn't even get into any other
18 details so it couldn't get blurred so I felt like I
19 had four specific acts that I could argue to the
20 jury are the four specific acts, but if -- 03:21PM

21 otherwise, I would be requesting an interrogatory,

22 you know, saying while grading an essay, while doing
23 a catechism the first time and then on Christmas
24 break.
25 THE COURT: Let me break down what you are 03:21PM
 Page 260

1 saying. The first thing you are saying is that

2 because there was testimony about an order, first
3 time October. The next charged act you went into
4 specifics about was catechism a few weeks after that
5 and a few weeks after that, the essay and then we 03:22PM

6 have the babysitting. That we don't have to be

7 concerned about the dates, is that what your
8 argument is?
9 MS. EAZER: It has to be reasonably near
10 the dates charged. 03:22PM

11 THE COURT: So that's your response to the

12 Rule 20 but you are also -- you're asking me if I
13 think if it would be better and I don't know it's my
14 job to do that. Are you affirmatively asking to
15 amend to add to-wits to any of the counts? 03:22PM

16 MS. EAZER: I felt like they were

17 distinguished enough, Judge, but I think just for
18 clarity sake, then, yes, I would ask to amend or ask
19 to have an interrogatory put on the jury verdict.
20 THE COURT: What are you asking me to 03:23PM

21 amend? All, some, one, two?

22 MS. EAZER: 3 and 4.
23 THE COURT: What would be -- your proposals
24 be to add?
25 MS. EAZER: To-wit, during catechism lesson 03:23PM
 Page 261

1 and to-wit, during -- while grading essay.

2 THE COURT: Anything you want to tell me
3 concerning Counts 3 and 4?
4 MS. EAZER: No, other than the host of case
5 law, and I would submit to the court that because, 03:23PM

6 again, because there's a relatively small period of

7 time, some of the cases I was looking at last night
8 when I was doing my jury instructions for the
9 instruction that I submitted to the court about
10 date not being -- you know, the State doesn't have 03:23PM

11 to prove the exact date. In some of those cases it

12 literally was months, I mean literally several
13 months on either side of the charged date, and so in
14 this case because we're looking at a four-month time
15 frame, obviously it would be reasonably near even if 03:24PM

16 it was looked to be a week outside of one of the

17 charged months.
18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr.
19 Sears, please.
20 MR. SEARS: Thank you. A couple of things 03:24PM

21 about that proposal. First, the State had complete

22 control over how they charged this case and how they
23 drafted the indictment for the Grand Jury in this
24 case and how they presented the case to the Grand
25 Jury and they elected to charge it as it appears, 03:24PM
 Page 262

1 which is one act, one discrete act of charged

2 conduct per month for this period of time. To allow
3 the State now at the close of their case to try and
4 solve the problem that the court identified as to
5 Counts 3 and 4, denies the defendant due process and 03:24PM

6 there is actual prejudice because the State has

7 tried to meet its burden with respect to the time
8 frame that they elected that they became wedded to
9 throughout the course of this case by and after the
10 fact to propose to change the time frame to on or 03:25PM

11 between October of 1995 and January 1996, he

12 committed these four acts, to-wit, each one. The
13 problem that that creates is that it essentially
14 makes meaningless the exercise of reading the jury
15 the amended indictment at the close of motion 03:25PM

16 practice that the State agreed at that time on that

17 day was the indictment they would go forward with
18 and replace it with an all new theory that never
19 mind what we said about dates and time periods, now
20 we're going to go with this broad period and we're 03:25PM

21 going to tell you that each of these acts is

22 distinguishable between the 404(c) uncharged sex
23 acts because they relate to this to-wit problem.
24 The time for them to do that was long ago. It was
25 before this trial started and not to put the 03:25PM
 Page 263

1 defendant back on his heels today at the close of

2 their case to respond to the shortcomings of their
3 own case.
4 I would also suggest for a minute that we
5 might want to just revisit Count 2, the October 03:26PM

6 count. The testimony, as I recall it, from M

7 J , who was the only one that was certain
8 essentially that the tutoring sessions started at
9 the beginning of school year 1995-'96, was it could
10 have been in August, it could have been in 03:26PM

11 September, but he did testify, as did both of his

12 parents, that it began with a twice weekly session.
13 So let's assume for the sake of argument that the
14 session started at the beginning of September 1995.
15 There would have been eight sessions that month. My 03:26PM

16 recollection of the evidence and I think what the

17 court has just described and what the State seems to
18 agree is that the first act of molestation took
19 place after the third session. If it was two a week
20 starting in September, then that would have been the 03:26PM

21 first session in the second week of September, not

22 close to October. So I would respectfully suggest
23 that the idea that the State has unquestionably met
24 its burden of proof on the indictment as it
25 presently stands is not necessarily consistent with 03:27PM
 Page 264

1 the testimony, some of the testimony that I heard at

2 trial, and the defendant is entitled, of course, to
3 notice but the victim, the alleged victim, M
4 J , could only say that it was the third session,
5 which would have been, you know, about a week and a 03:27PM

6 half after the sessions started. If they started in

7 August, which he did not exclude as a possibility,
8 then it pushes back the time for that third session
9 on the first molest even further away from October,
10 and, you know, if the court's ruling, as I 03:27PM

11 understand it, is the State has met its burden with

12 respect to the January 1996 date, notwithstanding
13 the testimony of L J , that still leaves the
14 problem that the court identified about Counts 3 and
15 4 but I think there is an equally significant 03:28PM

16 problem about the timing of Count 2 based on what I

17 just said, which is when did that actually occur.
18 These were not once a month sessions. These were
19 twice a week, eight per month over a long period,
20 and he could say with some certainty apparently that 03:28PM

21 the first session -- that there was some testimony

22 that he said it was the second time. The rest of
23 the testimony, the weight of the testimony was it
24 was probably the third time he saw Tom but at the
25 latest I would think that happened at the beginning 03:28PM
 Page 265

1 of the second week of September of 1995 and not in

2 October.
3 The State could have charged this case
4 differently at the outset. They could have had an
5 indictment that said -- but as they knew this 03:28PM

6 evidence, they knew that they were going to have

7 these four discrete acts. That's what was presented
8 to the Grand Jury by Detective Belling, who was
9 their witness. They could have charged it as on or
10 between August 1995 and February of 1996, the 03:29PM

11 defendant committed these four counts, to-wit, the

12 first session, the catechism, the school lesson, the
13 sleepover and those things but they chose not to.
14 They chose to charge the case in a particular way
15 and I think they are stuck with it. 03:29PM

16 THE COURT: Thank you. M J did

17 say the first time the genital touching occurred in
18 October of 1995 after he was hit by a switch from a
19 willow tree. I think that was clear. Anything else
20 that's brought up doesn't impact whether or not 03:29PM

21 there's substantial evidence that that incident

22 occurred around the time period as charged. I
23 think -- I agree with Mr. Sears when he indicates
24 that the State should have done things earlier.
25 They should have charged this better. I don't 03:30PM
 Page 266

1 disagree with Mr. Sears' statement concerning that.

2 However, the way the testimony came out in terms of
3 the notice issue, maybe Garner issues or any
4 arguments that can be made as to there being any
5 confusion concerning what the defendant is being 03:30PM

6 charged with or convicted of if there's a

7 conviction, I disagree he was prejudiced because he
8 had notice, and so that it is clear, to help the
9 defendant to make sure that he's being convicted of
10 a particular incident rather than just a general 03:30PM

11 incident, I think I'll grant the motion to amend the

12 indictment as to Counts 3 and 4 as to to-wits.
13 First let me find that there is substantial evidence
14 to permit Counts 3 and 4 to go to the jury. I
15 already made my findings as to 2 and 5. This should 03:31PM

16 have been done sooner, just like the motion -- the

17 notice of aggravators should have been filed sooner,
18 which I'm going to strike. We'll have argument on
19 that, but it was late and we had discussion in
20 chambers about it being late. We had discussion in 03:31PM

21 chambers, in fact, about how the defendant was

22 relying on the fact that no aggravators were filed
23 and they filed them on the 26th, which was --
24 according to the post date from the clerk, which is
25 the third day of trial which is too late. So while 03:31PM
 Page 267

1 I'm saying it, why don't I just say it now. I'm

2 striking the notice of aggravators because it was
3 filed too late and the defendant didn't have notice
4 because based on a conversation we had in chambers,
5 which I can't recall if it was on or off the record. 03:31PM

6 I know it was in Prescott, but at that time -- that

7 day we had a number of conversations in chambers and
8 I can't remember if the court reporter was in there
9 or not, but there was a discussion when we were
10 talking about scheduling that there was not a need 03:32PM

11 for an aggravating factors trial because no notice

12 had been filed; therefore, I could not sentence the
13 defendant, if we got there, to greater than the
14 presumptive term. Mr. Sears agreed, yes, they
15 hadn't filed that so that's how they were 03:32PM

16 proceeding. I don't think you can change the rules

17 concerning that issue from a sentencing perspective
18 after the trial began, but that's a different issue
19 than the issue of the to-wits because the to-wits
20 provide clarity to what's already been charged and 03:32PM

21 alleged and the defendant has notice of rather than

22 changing things.
23 So as to Count 3, I'm going to grant the
24 State's motion to add a to-wit. This refers to
25 catechism. What's your proposed language? 03:33PM
 Page 268

1 Catechism?
2 MS. EAZER: During catechism lesson.
3 THE COURT: Incident during catechism, and
4 Count 4 would be a to-wit. This refers to incident
5 while grading an essay? 03:33PM

6 MS. EAZER: Yes.

7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let's
8 move to -- you want to deal with Count 6 and 7
9 together because they're related victims?
10 MR. SEARS: They are and they are 03:33PM

11 essentially the same argument with some distinction

12 and I'll show you the distinction right away, which
13 is Count 7. Count 7 is the count alleging an
14 assault on J W . The testimony from J
15 W was that it was one incident. He took her 03:34PM

16 into his office, turned her over his knee, spanked

17 her three to five times with a bare hand over her
18 clothing, and she said that it was hard and it took
19 her breath away. That's her testimony. Knowing
20 that the defendant, already I think through cross 03:34PM

21 examination, introduced evidence of a justification

22 defense under the statute, I think the court has to
23 determine whether that testimony taken in the light
24 most favorable to denying this motion sets forth a
25 crime. Is that a crime? It is -- you have to look 03:34PM
 Page 269

1 at the definition of aggravated assault, which is

2 essentially a simple assault committed on a child
3 under the age of fifteen, and determine whether or
4 not under the circumstances and the evidence that
5 we've heard today from T W at the very end 03:34PM

6 of the State's case, that while he doesn't think he

7 expressly granted permission, that he understands
8 that the defendant could reasonably believe he had
9 the permission of the parents to spank the children,
10 but more than that, the justification statute that 03:35PM

11 is in my proposed instruction does not require

12 permission. It allows --
13 THE COURT: But reasonable is permitted
14 whether there's permission by a parent or not.
15 That's what I was referring to. 03:35PM

16 MR. SEARS: That's my interpretation as

17 well. I agree. So the question is, has the State
18 met the burden of proof not only that the elements
19 of the charged offense were present, which I submit
20 it hasn't, but to overcome their burden of proof 03:35PM

21 beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever it was that

22 happened, even if it amounted to a violation of the
23 aggravated assault statute, was justified by the
24 defendant, and I think there's a question about when
25 the justification defense arises in this case, and I 03:35PM
 Page 270

1 think the court has heard through cross examination

2 of many, many witnesses, including both J and
3 W W , and the cross and the other testimony
4 of T W over a two-day period that he
5 testified that makes it clear that the defendant has 03:36PM

6 put at issue the question of justification, such

7 that the court, even if no additional evidence was
8 presented by the defendant, would be obligated under
9 the law to give the justification instruction, which
10 leaves the burden with the State. It's not an 03:36PM

11 affirmative defense. It's part of the State's

12 burden in this case.
13 As to Count 7, I think that's the question to
14 be determined by the court, is this a crime to begin
15 with and if it is enough of a crime to go to a jury 03:36PM

16 without deciding whether there's proof beyond a

17 reasonable doubt, has the State in any way rebutted
18 the burden of proof that they carry, beyond a
19 reasonable doubt, to show that the conduct was not
20 justified. I would say the state of the evidence 03:36PM

21 today at the end of the State's case is they have

22 failed to meet both burdens.
23 THE COURT: Thank you. Do you want to say
24 something about Count 6?
25 MR. SEARS: I do. Count 6 is similar in 03:37PM
 Page 271

1 that despite the 404(b) evidence from W W

2 about what happened, the charged count is
3 essentially similar to the conduct that is
4 complained of against his sister, that it was
5 spanking over the clothes with an implement, 03:37PM

6 although his testimony about the implement might

7 have been changed during his testimony about boat
8 oar or paddle or something but, again, that doesn't
9 necessarily make it a crime, nor does it make it
10 unjustified. 03:37PM

11 The circumstances under which the defendant

12 had the control and custody of these children is
13 undisputed. It was a mutual agreement with the
14 children's parents that he be babysitting them. You
15 heard the testimony as to both children about the 03:37PM

16 defendant's reasonable belief or right to reasonably

17 believe he was permitted to discipline the children,
18 and the question remains was the discipline
19 reasonable and appropriate. The State has the
20 burden to show it wasn't. I don't think as to 03:38PM

21 either child, as to the charged conduct, not the

22 404(b) conduct, the bare-bottomed spankings and all
23 the other things that W W said as part of
24 his 404(b) evidence, the three uncharged events, the
25 to-wit count, the event witnessed by his sister was 03:38PM
 Page 272

1 very similar to the conduct that she says took place

2 with her, and for those reasons, I think that the
3 State has not yet met its burden and will not meet
4 its burden in their case-in-chief of proof beyond a
5 reasonable doubt that constitutes substantial 03:38PM

6 evidence in the context of a Rule 20 motion or the

7 justification defense.
8 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I paid
9 very close attention to that testimony, as well as I
10 did all the testimony, but particularly concerning 03:38PM

11 this because I have the same concerns that Mr. Sears

12 had as to whether or not this -- the descriptions
13 were going to be merely spanking or something more
14 because if it was merely spanking, I would agree
15 with Mr. Sears and I'm not certain that the State 03:39PM

16 would have met its burden at this stage, Rule 20

17 stage.
18 I was confused about thinking -- at the time
19 of the testimony, I was confused why would the State
20 introduce and then permit to be introduced evidence 03:39PM

21 that these children had been -- you know, had to

22 endure -- had experienced, rather, physical
23 discipline by their own parents. I'm not sure how
24 that was relevant, I was thinking at the time, and I
25 was waiting for an objection and none came. I 03:39PM
 Page 273

1 probably would have sustained the objection. I

2 suppose that it came out as a compare and contrast
3 because they did that. There is testimony about
4 taking breath away, screaming and crying out in
5 pain, felt like they had never been hit before with 03:40PM

6 what they were hit with and how they were hit. In
7 fact, J W said she had never been in that
8 much pain before.
9 As a result of that combined with other trial
10 testimony I referenced and others I did not 03:41PM

11 reference, I believe there has been substantial

12 evidence as it applies to 6 and 7 to go to the jury.
13 Let's address now M J in Count 8,
14 please.
15 MR. SEARS: Count 8 is a count unrelated to 03:41PM

16 the sequence of events that the State has laid out

17 of spanking and tutoring. It is one-off aggravated
18 assault. I think the court at one point was
19 considering severing that count from trial but
20 ultimately it would be tried together with this 03:41PM

21 case, but now that we've heard the evidence, it is

22 what it is. This young man had a particularly poor
23 memory for almost everything he was asked but
24 claimed that he had a better memory of this
25 particular incident because it was traumatic but 03:42PM
 Page 274

1 told the police officer in her report that he was

2 struck in the face or the chest. The police officer
3 tried to walk that back by suggesting on examination
4 by the State that maybe she was mistaken and she
5 certainly made a number of other admitted mistakes 03:42PM

6 in her work but, nonetheless, there is that report

7 that contradicts his version.
8 Most importantly, all of the evidence that
9 came in, including evidence from the alleged victim
10 himself, but from all the other people who were 03:42PM

11 there, was that no one saw this, that it was -- it

12 took place in a crowded parking lot near this little
13 parsonage house. There were people sitting in the
14 front yard of the house. The court has seen the
15 pictures of how small that yard was, how close it 03:42PM

16 was to the church building. There were people

17 setting up food outside. There were people there
18 not directly connected with the church. People
19 parking their cars to watch the fireworks later that
20 night, and no one saw this, not a single person, not 03:43PM

21 another child because this was in the middle of this

22 ongoing water fight that went on with kids on the
23 roof and kids in the yard running around.
24 So M J reports it to his father, who
25 doesn't see it. Father confronts the defendant. 03:43PM
 Page 275

1 The defendant says absolutely it didn't happen and

2 for whatever reason, whether it was part of this
3 desire to forgive the new pastor, nothing was done.
4 The police weren't called. No action was taken.
5 The counseling session by Rich Howe on sitting 03:43PM

6 on the wall, which the defendant will deny ever took

7 place, the counseling session was before this. It
8 was about Tom's supposed poor attitude about this
9 party taking place at his new home and not about,
10 you know, don't go hitting twelve year old children, 03:43PM

11 particularly the child of one of the church elders

12 in the face with a closed fist. So that's the
13 allegation. The allegation hasn't changed. There's
14 no evidence.
15 The State suggests in the jury instruction 03:44PM

16 their failure to bring on witnesses should be

17 excused because they don't have to bring on every
18 witness and that part of it may be literally correct
19 but that begs the larger question of whether they
20 did or not being less important than whether they 03:44PM

21 should have or not.

22 A person was identified as Steve Franklin. A
23 couple of witnesses said, yeah, he was there. No
24 effort was made to find Steve Franklin. He didn't
25 come forward. That evidence is now in the bank. 03:44PM
 Page 276

1 It's done in this case, and the only person saying

2 that this happened is M J and his
3 statements about that are not even consistent, and
4 he's describing an event that happened more than 23
5 years ago to him when he was 12 years old, the 03:44PM

6 person today as a 30 something adult with an obvious

7 poor memory for practically anything else, that he
8 can recall this one incident. So the question is
9 just a pure burden of proof case. Has the State
10 produced substantial evidence that this act occurred 03:45PM

11 beyond what the alleged victim says with nothing to

12 corroborate it, nothing to support it and plenty of
13 circumstantial evidence to show that it's unlikely
14 to have happened, beginning with just the
15 improbability of the three-week old pastor in the 03:45PM

16 church deciding it was a good day to punch the

17 twelve year old son of a church elder in full view
18 of the assembled congregation. The improbability
19 goes to the weight of it, I would concede that, but
20 the failure to produce any other evidence, even if 03:45PM

21 other evidence was available or to search for other

22 evidence, tells me that this case, that this count
23 in this case was never intended to get off the
24 ground. It's just something that was put into the
25 case for a particular tactical reason, and now we 03:45PM
 Page 277

1 are at a juncture where the court has the ability to

2 take this count back out of this case where it
3 belongs. The State hasn't done anything other than
4 put on something that says this happened to me,
5 period. That's the evidence. 03:46PM

6 THE COURT: Thank you. I don't know that

7 the law requires an eyewitness to a crime for there
8 to be a conviction or substantial evidence. And I
9 agree with Mr. Sears. Well, first, there are
10 certainly limitations of what you can do in an 03:46PM

11 investigation when you are investigating in 2015 and

12 the incident occurred in 1995. That being said, I
13 agree with Mr. Sears that this was a less than
14 thorough investigation conducted by the Prescott
15 Police Department, perhaps putting it kindly. There 03:46PM

16 was no attempt to even find out and identify who was

17 there or who could have -- at least to attempt to
18 find out people. That being said, frankly, M
19 J did testify about being hard enough to be
20 knocked to the ground, never being hit that hard 03:47PM

21 before. He was shocked by it and hurt.

22 As a result of same, I find that there's
23 substantial evidence to support Count 8 going to the
24 jury. So therefore, the Rule 20 motions are denied
25 as to all counts. 03:47PM
 Page 278

1 I'm going to give you -- we're going to break

2 now. I'll give you some time to set up and I need
3 to give the court reporter a break as well. Let's
4 take about ten minutes or so.
5 MR. SEARS: It will be fine. 03:47PM

6 THE COURT: You are using your laptop?

7 MR. SEARS: Yes.
8 THE COURT: Let me just switch the display
9 to that.
10 MR. SEARS: We appreciate your expertise. 03:47PM

11 THE COURT: No problem. I'm in this

12 courtroom a lot.
13 MR. SEARS: Aren't we all? If we start at
14 the hour and go thirty minutes into the video, is
15 that appropriate? 03:48PM

16 THE COURT: That's fine. So I think pick a

17 time around 4:30'ish, give or take, you know, a few
18 minutes in either direction, where you think would
19 be a good stopping point in terms of a line of
20 questioning. I'll leave it up to you. 03:48PM

21 MR. SEARS: Thank you.

22 THE COURT: Thank you, everyone.
23 (Following a short recess at 3:48 p.m.,
24 proceedings continued on the Record at 3:57 p.m.)
25 THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. Please be 03:56PM
 Page 279

1 seated.
2 Mr. Sears, you wanted to put something on the
3 record?
4 MR. SEARS: I forgot to mention this
5 before. 03:57PM

6 THE COURT: No worries.

7 MR. SEARS: I'd ask that you give a little
8 preamble to the jury about why we are doing this by
9 video and that they can't ask questions because it's
10 a video. 03:57PM

11 THE COURT: Right. I'll just say because

12 of witness unavailability. Is that good enough?
13 MR. SEARS: Yeah.
14 THE COURT: Is that okay, Miss Eazer?
15 MS. EAZER: That's fine, Judge. 03:57PM

16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. And

17 I'll also tell them that it's not going to end
18 today; it will go into tomorrow.
19 MR. SEARS: It looks like now if we do 30
20 minutes here, tomorrow with a break or two in the 03:57PM

21 middle, we'll go the whole morning with the balance

22 of this.
23 THE COURT: Okay. No problem. Thank you.
24 Does that get you squared away then?
25 MR. SEARS: We see a natural break at about 03:57PM
 Page 280

1 28 minutes. By the time they sit down and get

2 settled, that will take us right up to 4:30.
3 THE COURT: You tested and we're all good?
4 Volume is all good.
5 (Whereupon, the jury entered the
6 courtroom.)
7 THE COURT: Thank you for your time and
8 patience. At this time the State has rested. So
9 they're done with their case-in-chief.
10 At this time the defense will begin their 03:58PM

11 case, and the first witness that they are calling is

12 going to be done a little differently than we've
13 seen before because it's not going to be live
14 testimony. It's done through a videotape. It's a
15 pretrial deposition that was done by the parties, 03:59PM

16 and sometimes we do that if someone is unavailable

17 for trial. Instead of working the entire trial and
18 messing with everyone's schedule, including yours,
19 we do it sometimes this way. So we're going to
20 watch a portion of it from now until we break and I 03:59PM

21 say a portion because it's not going to be complete

22 and we'll come back in the morning and finish it up.
23 We squared away, sir?
24 MR. SEARS: We're having a mouse problem.
25 THE COURT: I heard this courtroom does 03:59PM
 Page 281

1 have a mouse problem.

2 MR. SEARS: Can we talk among ourselves for
3 a minute?
4 THE COURT: Sure, you can talk among
5 yourselves.
6 MR. SEARS: This is not our technology,
7 Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: No problem. I was looking at
9 my FaceBook feed over the break and five years ago
10 this very day I was at the Out of Africa Wildlife 04:00PM

11 Park with my kids. So I just can't get away from

12 this. Five years later where have I progressed?
13 MR. SEARS: You're moving north.
14 THE COURT: I'm moving north, right.
15 THE BAILIFF: See you in 2023. 04:00PM

16 MR. SEARS: It was working perfectly until

17 just a minute ago.
18 THE COURT: No worries.
19 MR. SEARS: Judge, there's one other matter
20 about jury questions related to this. 04:00PM

21 THE COURT: That's right. Thank you, Mr.

22 Sears, for reminding me. So because this is being
23 done by a videotape and you are watching, obviously
24 there won't be an opportunity to ask questions of
25 this witness. 04:01PM
 Page 282

1 (Whereupon, the videotaped deposition

2 was played in court.)
3 MR. SEARS: Judge, this would be a good
4 point.
5 THE COURT: Thank you, Ladies and 04:28PM

6 Gentlemen. This is a reminder of our schedule.

7 We'll see you back here tomorrow morning at 9:00 for
8 a full day of trial. Enjoy your evening. Remember
9 the admonition. Thank you.
10 (Whereupon, the jury exited the
11 courtroom.)
12 THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. Please be
13 seated. I didn't do this because we didn't talk
14 about it, but did you want me to say anything about
15 the edits that, you know, we treated this witness's 04:29PM

16 testimony like any other witness, so if there were

17 objections I sustained, we just edited them out so
18 that's why there are breaks. Do you want me to tell
19 them that?
20 MR. SEARS: We were just thinking the very 04:30PM

21 same thing because you can see the white flashes and
22 that was an editing technique to comply with court
23 orders or something like that, or what you said is
24 probably more thorough, that the testimony was
25 treated just like any witness's testimony but 04:30PM
 Page 283

1 editing was done.

2 THE COURT: Okay. I'll tell them that.
3 Thank you.
4 Anything else we need to address before we
5 break for the evening from the State's perspective? 04:30PM

6 MS. EAZER: No, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Sears?
8 MR. SEARS: I don't think so.
9 THE COURT: Thank you. When do you think
10 we'll be done with this tomorrow? 04:30PM

11 MR. SEARS: We took half an hour off three

12 hours. Well, there's two hours and 45 minutes. So
13 we figure with at least one, maybe two breaks, we'll
14 go right up against the noon hour, if we start right
15 at 9:00. 04:30PM

16 THE COURT: Sure. Do you think we can go

17 to 10:30 straight; are you okay with doing that?
18 MR. SEARS: I haven't been watching the
19 jurors. My only concern is that's a long stretch.
20 That's watching, you know, a first run movie, taking 04:30PM

21 a bathroom break and watching another one. Not all

22 of us are capable of doing that.
23 THE COURT: Fair enough. Why don't you
24 look for a break about maybe an hour and fifteen or
25 so I think would be a good break and we'll do that. 04:31PM
 Page 284

1 We'll do it in an hour and fifteen chunks from now.

2 Anything else? Thank you, everyone. Have a
3 good evening.
4 (Whereupon, the proceedings were
5 recessed at 4:31 p.m.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 Page 285

1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 STATE OF ARIZONA )
) ss.
4 COUNTY OF YAVAPAI )
5
6 I, Lisa A. Steinmeyer, a Certified
7 Reporter in the State of Arizona, do hereby certify
8 that the foregoing 284 pages contain a true and
9 correct transcript of the proceedings held in
10 connection with the aforementioned action; that my
11 stenograph notes were thereafter transcribed and
12 reduced to typewritten form under my supervision, as
13 the same appears herein.
14 I further certify that I am not attorney
15 for or relative to any of said parties, or otherwise
16 interested in the event of said action.
17 WITNESS MY HAND this 6th day of March,
18 2019.
19 /s/ Lisa A. Steinmeyer
_____________________________________
20 LISA A. STEINMEYER, CRR, RPR, CSR, CR
Certified Reporter
21 Certificate No. 50942
22
23
24
25