Basic Information:

--

The case began on June 6, 1996, when Routier called 911 reporting that an intruder had broken into her home in Rowlett, Texas, and attacked her and her two sons, Damon and Devon, while they were sleeping.

Upon arrival, emergency responders found Devon, aged 6, dead at the scene, while Damon, aged 5, died shortly after being transported to the hospital. Routier herself had sustained stab wounds. She told police that an intruder had entered the house and attacked them, but she had survived.

However, the police investigation raised doubts about Routier's account. Evidence suggested the crime scene might have been staged and that Routier's wounds were self-inflicted. The prosecution argued that Routier murdered her sons due to financial stress and a desire to rid herself of responsibilities that interfered with her lifestyle.

In 1997, Darlie Routier was convicted of the murder of her younger son, Damon, and sentenced to death. The case against her was primarily based on the forensic evidence gathered at the scene, as well as the behavior she exhibited in the days following the murders, including a videotape of her spraying silly string at her sons' graves during a birthday commemoration, which the prosecution used to question her character.

Routier has maintained her innocence, and her case has garnered a significant amount of attention and support from those who believe she was wrongfully convicted. Advocates for Routier argue that the investigation was flawed, the trial was biased, and that there was a lack of direct evidence linking her to the murders. Over the years, there have been numerous appeals and requests for forensic testing of evidence using advanced techniques not available during the original trial.

Images of Darlie , as well as her with her two sons:

--

Information on Darlie Routier:

--

She is classified as a murderer, specifically having committed parricide. The crime involved the killing of two victims, identified as her own children, Damon aged 5, and Devon aged 6. The murders occurred on June 6, 1996, in Rowlett, Texas, USA. Darlie Lynn Routier was apprehended on June 18, 1996, and was subsequently sentenced to death on February 4, 1997. The method employed in this tragic incident was stabbing with a knife. Darlie Lynn Routier was born on January 4, 1970.

Links to Autopsy reports of Damon and Devon Routier:

--

Damon's:

https://murderpedia.org/female./R/images/routier-darlie/damon-routier-autopsy.pdf

Devon's:

https://murderpedia.org/female./R/images/routier-darlie/devon-routier-autopsy.pdf

Here's the 991 call, voice is Darlie Routier, the murderer:

--

--

TRANSCRIPT

911 TRANSCRIPT

Recorded by The Rowlett Police Department

June 6, 1996.

Transcript created by Barry Dickey

(*This transcript was done after the state "enhanced" the recording and is not accurate)

Time ID Conversation/Sounds

00:0 0:00 911 Operator #1 ...Rowlett 911...what is your emergency..

00: 01:19 Darlie Routier ...somebody came here...they broke in...

00:0 3:27 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...

00:05 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my children...

00:0 7:16 911 Operator #1 ...what...

00:0 8:05 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my kids...my little boys...

00:0 9:24 911 Operator #1 ...who...who did...

0 0:1 1:12 Darlie Routier ...my little boy is dying...

00 :1 1:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible) clear...

00:1 3:07 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ...hang on... hang on

00:15 :03 Darlie Routier ...hurry... (unintelligible)...

00:16:01 911 Operator #1 ...stand by for medical emergency

00:1 8 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...

00:1 8:19 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ma'am...

00:2 1:26 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...

00:2 3:00 911 Operator #1 ...unknown medical emergency... 5801 Eagle Drive...

00:2 4:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

00:2 6:24 Darlie Routier ...ma'am...

00:2 7:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am... I'm trying to get an ambulance to you... hang on a minute...

00:28:20 RADIO ...(siren)...

00:29:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my babies are dying...

00:30:12 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

00:31:09 911 Operator #1 ...what's going on ma'am...

00:32:13 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) ...oh my God...

00:33:49 RADIO ...(tone - signal broadcast)...

00:34:01 Background Voice ...(unintelligible)...

00:35:20 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) thought he was dead ...oh my God...

00:39:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

00:3 9:29 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)...

00:40 :22 911 Operator #1 ...attention 901 unknown medical emergency 5801...

00:42 :23 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

00:43 :15 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)...

00:44 :04 911 Operator #1 ...Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook ...attention 901 medial emergency...

00:49 Darlie Routier ...who was breathing...

00:4 0:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

00:51 :15 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) are they still laying there (unintelligible)...

00:5 1:19 911 Operator #1 ...may be possible stabbing ...5801 Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook...

00 55:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...what do we do...

00:5 7:17 911 Operator #1 ...time out 2:32...

00:58 :26 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

00:58 911 Operator #1 ...stamp me a card Clint...

01:0 1:02 911 Operator #1 ...80...

01:01 :16 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

01:0 2:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

01:0 3:05 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

01: 04:07 911 Operator #1 ...need units going towards 5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive

01:0 4:07 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my baby's dead...

01:07 :08 Darlie Routier ...Damon ...hold on honey...

01:0 8 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

01: 08:22 911 Operator #1 ...hysterical female on the phone...

01:1 0:03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...

01:1 0:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

01:10 :26 911 Operator #1 ...says her child has been stabbed

0 1:11 Darlie Routier ...I saw them Darin...

01:12 :21 Darin Routier ...oh my God ...(unintelligible) ...came in here...

01:14 :10 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I need you to calm down and talk to me...

01:14 :24 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

01:16 :25 Darlie Routier ...ok...

01:16 :26 SOUND ...(unintelligible)...

01:17 :12 911 Operator #1 ...twice Clint...

01: 18:26 Darlie Routier ...didn't you get my address...

01:2 0:19 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle...

01:2 2:00 Darlie Routier ...yes ...we need help...

01:2 2:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) will be enroute code...

01:2 4:20 Darlie Routier ...Darin ...I don't know who it was...

01:2 4:23 911 Operator #1 ...2:33 code...

01: 26:15 Darlie Routier ...we got to find out who it was...

01 :27:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...

01:2 8:04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am listen ...listen to me...

01:2 9:27 Darlie Routier ...yes ...yes ...(unintelligible)...

01:3 0:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'm clear ...do you need anything...

01:3 2:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

01: 32:20 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

01:3 4:00 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)...

01:3 4:22 911 Operator #1 ...do you take the radio Clint...

01:3 5:23 911 Operator #2 ...yes...

01:36 :12 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

01:3 6:25 911 Operator #1 ...I...ma'am...

01:3 8:03 Darlie Routier ...yes...

01:3 8:17 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to ...

01: 38:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) start that way (unintelligible)... will revise...

01: 39 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to talk to me...

01: 41:21 Darlie Routier ...what ...what ...what...

01:4 4:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

01:44 Darlie Routier ...my babies are dead (unintelligible)...

01:4 6:20 RADIO ...go ahead and start that way ...siren code 4 ...advise...

01:4 7:10 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...

01:48 :03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) do you want honey ...hold on (unintelligible)...

01:4 9:17 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I can't understand you...

01:5 0:21 Darlie Routier ...yes...

01:51 :18 911 Operator #1 ...you're going to have to slow down ...calm down ...and talk to me...

01:5 2:19 Darlie Routier ...I'm talking to my babies ...they're dying...

01:5 5:03 911 Operator #1 ...what is going on...

01:5 6:29 Darlie Routier ...somebody came in while I was sleeping ...me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs...

02:0 2:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'll be clear...

02:0 2:20 Darlie Routier ...some man ...came in ...stabbed my babies ...stabbed me ...I woke up ...I was fighting ...he ran out through the garage ...threw the knife down ...my babies are dying ...they're dead ...oh my God...

02: 14:23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...stay on the phone with me...

02: 16 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

02:1 7:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

02:1 7:29 911 Operator #1 ...what happened (unintelligible) dispatch 901...

02:2 0:15 Darlie Routier ...hold on honey ...hold on...

02:22 :01 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) who was on (unintelligible)...

02:2 2:26 911 Operator #2 ...it was (unintelligible) the white phone...

02:23 :08 Darlie Routier ...hold on...

02:2 5:26 911 Operator #2 ...they were wondering when we need to dispatch ...so I sent a double team...

02:2 5 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God...

02:2 8:08 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...thanks...

02 :28:21 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

02: 29:20 SOUND ...(unintelligible)...

02 :30:01 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

02:3 0:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...

02:3 1:06 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

02:3 1:14 911 Operator #1 ...who's there with you...

02:3 2:15 Darlie Routier ...Karen ...(unintelligible)...

02:3 3:15 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...

02: 34:06 Darlie Routier ...what...

02:3 8 911 Operator #1 ...is there anybody in the house ...besides you and your children...

02:38 Darlie Routier ...no ...my husband he just ran downstairs ...he's helping me ...but they're dying ...oh my God ...they're dead...

02:43 :24 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...ok ...how many little boys ...is it two boys...

02:46 :06 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

02:46 :25 Darlie Routier ...there's two of 'em ...there's two...

02:48 :18 RADIO ...what's the cross street on that address on Eagle...

02:50 :15 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...who would do this...

02:5 3:13 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) listen to me ...calm down ...(unintelligible)...

02:5 3:21 Darlie Routier ...I feel really bad ...I think I'm dying...

02:5 5:06 RADIO ...228...

02:5 6:06 911 Operator #1 ...go ahead...

02:5 8:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible) address again (unintelligible)...

02: 59:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

02:5 9:22 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...

03:00 :22 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive...

03:0 3 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...

03: 03:29 911 Operator #1 ...going to be a stabbing...

03:0 5:20 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here...

03: 06:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...they're on their way...

03:0 8:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

03:0 8:08 Darlie Routier ...I gotta just sit here forever ...oh my God...

03:1 1:14 911 Operator #1 ...2:35...

03:1 2:05 Darie Routier ...who would do this ...who would do this...

03:1 3:09 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

03:1 4:26 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)...

03:1 6:08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...how old are your boys...

03:18 :20 Darin Routier ...what...

03:1 9:03 911 Operator #1 ...how old are your boys...

03:20 :04 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

03:2 0:21 911 Operator #1 ...no...

03:21 :01 Darlie Routier ...seven and five...

03:2 2:17 911 Operator #1 ...ok...

03:2 3:08 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...oh ...he's dead...

03:2 9:02 911 Operator #1 ...calm down ...can you...

03:2 9:03 Darlie Routier ...oh God ...Devon no ...oh my God...

03:3 0:27 SOUND ...(dog barking)...

03:3 5:02 911 Operator #1 ...is your name Darlie...

03:36 : Darlie Routier ...yes...

03:36:26 911 Operator #1 ...this is her...

03:3 7:09 911 Operator #1 ...is your husband's name Darin...

03: 38:22 Darlie Routier ...yes ...please hurry ...God they're taking forever...

03:4 1:20 911 Operator #1 ...there's nobody in your house ...there was ...was...

03:4 4:05 911 Operator #1 ...you don't know who did this...

03:4 5:19 Police Officer ...look for a rag...

03:4 6 Darlie Routier ...they killed our babies...

03:4 8:03 Police Officer ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible)

03:51 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)...

03:5 2:13 Darlie Routier ...no ...he ran out ...uh ...they ran out in the garage ...I was sleeping...

03:54 :09 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)...

03:5 6:19 Darlie Routier ...my babies over here already cut ...can I (unintelligible)...

03:5 9:29 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible) phone is right there...

04:0 1 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...

04:0 3:01 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

04: 05:02 Darlie Routier ...ya'll look out in the garage ...look out in the garage ...they left a knife laying on...

04:0 8:21 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

04:0 9:19 911 Operator #1 ...there's a knife ...don't touch anything...

04:11: 18 Darlie Routier ...I already touched it and picked it up...

04:1 2:05 RADIO ...10-4...

04:1 5:20 911 Operator #1 ...who's out there ...is anybody out there...

04 :16:07 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...

04:1 7:06 Darlie Routier ...I don't know ...I was sleeping...

04: 18:14 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am ...listen ...there's a police officer at your front door ...is your front door unlocked...

04:2 2 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

04: 22:15 Darlie Routier ...yes ma'am ...but where's the ambulance...

04:2 4:21 911 Operator #1 ...ok...

04:2 4:23 Darlie Routier ...they're barely breathing...

04:26 :17 Darlie Routier ...if they don't get it here they're gonna be dead ...my God they're (unintelligible) ...hurry ...please hurry...

04:31 :13 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...they're ...they're...

04:32 :18 Police Officer ...what about you...

04:33 :06 911 Operator #1 ...is 82 out on Eagle...

04:34 :18 Darlie Routier ...huh...

04:3 5:12 Darin Routier ...they took (unintelligible) ...they ran (unintelligible)...

04:3 6 911 Operator #2 ...(unintelligible)...

04:3 7:08 Darlie Routier ...we're at Eagle ...5801 Eagle ...my God and hurry...

04:41 :03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

04:41 :22 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...are you out...

04:42:2 5 Police Officer ...nothing's gone Mrs. Routier...

04:44 :10 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...why would they do this...

04:48 :03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) to advise (unintelligible) 200...

04:50: 18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier...

04:50 :21 911 Operator #1 ...what'd he say...

04:51 :29 Darlie Routier ...why would they do this...

04:53 :08 Darlie Routier ...I'm (unintelligible)...

04:54 :07 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...listen ma'am ...need to ...need to let the officers in the front door ...ok...

04:59 Darlie Routier ...what...

05:00 :04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am..

05:00 :22 Darlie Routier ...what ...what...

05:01 :15 911 Operator #1 ...need to let the police officers in the front door...

05:04 :21 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) his knife was lying over there and I already picked it up...

05:08 :19 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...it's alright ...it's ok...

05:09 :20 Darlie Routier ...God ...I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe ...maybe...

05:13 :18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...

05:14 :18 RADIO ...82 ...we'll be (unintelligible)...

05:17 :12 Darlie Routier ...ok ...it'll be...

05:18 :08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...hang on ...hang on a second...

05:19 :09 Darlie Routier ...somebody who did it intentionally walked in here and did it Darin...

05:20 :19 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...10-9...

05:21 :23 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

05:22 911 Operator #1 ...received...

05:23 :05 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched...

05:24 :12 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am...

05:25 :13 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched...

05:26 :20 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

05 :00 Darlie Routier ...oh my God...

05:29 :08 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...

05:29 :23 RADIO ...received...

05:31 :19 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

05:33 :25 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...is the police officer there...

05:35 :14 Darlie Routier ...yes (unintelligible)...

05: 35 :23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...go talk to him ...ok...

05: 38 :03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

Total length of tape is 5: 44

YES I KNOW THE TIME STAMPS ARE FUCKED AND HAVE EMOJIS IN THEM. I DO NOT CARE, THE TIME ARE IRRELEVANT, JUST FOLLOW ALONG WITH THE VIDEO.

anyways.... CHILD WARNING VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Images of the boys (I don't have any idea who is who, but it looks like there is only one boy in these images):

--

Crime Scene Photos:

--

Harm that was done to Darlie by Darlie:

--

Motive:

--

The prosecution argued that Darlie Routier murdered her sons due to the family's financial struggles. Despite being a full-time homemaker, her husband Darin, a small business owner, had a relatively high income. In a subsequent interview with Joe Munoz of KXAS Channel 5 in Dallas-Fort Worth, Darin Routier referred to their lifestyle as "living large" just days after the tragic deaths. The family resided in a two-story home in a middle-class neighborhood, drove a mid-sized SUV, and owned a used Jaguar automobile and a used boat.

According to the prosecutors, Darlie Routier was portrayed as a pampered and materialistic woman facing substantial debt, declining credit ratings, and limited funds in the bank. Allegedly fearing the imminent end of her middle-class lifestyle, she was accused of resorting to the drastic measure of murdering her sons.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas:

--

ONLY PARTS DUE TO GOING OVER 100K LIMIT:

Routier v. State

Darlie Lynn ROUTIER, Appellant,

v.

The STATE of Texas.

No. 72795.

May 21, 2003

J. Stephen Cooper, Dallas, for Appellant.John R. Rolater, Jr., Asst. DA, Dallas, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for State.

The appellant was convicted of the capital murder of a child under six years of age.  Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(8).   Pursuant to the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death.  Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(g).  Direct appeal to this Court is automatic.  Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(h).  The appellant raises fourteen points of error.   We shall affirm.

The evidence that supports the verdict shows that the appellant stabbed and killed her two sons, Damon and Devon,1 while her husband and infant son were asleep upstairs in the house.   The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction, and therefore, it is not necessary to set out the evidence in detail.

I. Claims Regarding the Record

In her brief, the appellant makes several claims regarding the preparation and certification of the reporter's record in addition to claims regarding her trial.   We will address claims dealing with the accuracy of the record before dealing with the appellant's claims regarding her trial.   Specifically, the appellant complains that she is entitled to a new trial because of problems with the reporter's record.   She argues that, at a minimum, she is entitled to a hearing before the record can be used to decide her appeal.   A review of the facts pertaining to these points of error is necessary.

The appellant's trial took place in January 1997.   The certified court reporter, Sandra Halsey, took stenographic notes during the trial.   Halsey simultaneously typed notes of the proceedings onto paper strips (“notes”) and onto computer edit disks (“disks”) that automatically translated the stenographic symbols into English.   In April 1998, under an order of contempt issued by this Court the month before,2 Halsey prepared, certified, and filed the original reporter's record in the case (“Halsey record”).

In a motion to correct and clarify Halsey's record, filed October 13, 1998, the appellant raised the first dispute about the accuracy of the record.   An excerpt of the record that had been read to the jury did not match the corresponding portion of the Halsey record.   Also, counsel noted discrepancies about who was present during the trial and when.   The next day this Court granted the appellant's motion and ordered Halsey to prepare, certify, and file a supplemental reporter's record containing any omitted items.   We also ordered the trial court 3 to resolve any dispute raised in the appellant's motion and to ensure that the reporter's record conformed to what occurred at trial.

The trial court conducted a hearing and decided that the entire record had to be reviewed to comply with this Court's October 14, 1998 order.   In a hearing held October 30, 1998, pursuant to our order, Halsey testified that she made audiotape recordings (“tapes”) in addition to the notes and disks during the trial.   Halsey claimed that the audiotape recorder worked during only the voir dire portion of the trial.   The trial court ordered Halsey to produce her notes, disks, and tapes from the trial.   The trial court also ordered her to conduct a review of the record and make note of any problems she found or corrections she made.

At a hearing held on November 4, 1998, the trial court appointed three certified court reporters, Tommy Mullins, Judy Miller, and Jerry Calloway (“the experts”), to perform a review and to compare the notes and disks to Halsey's record to determine whether Halsey's record could be certified.

Although Halsey had told the trial court and the experts that she possessed no tapes from the guilt and punishment phases of the trial, on November 12, 1998, she told prosecutor Lindsey Roberts and appellant's counsel Stephen Cooper that tapes from those phases of the trial did exist.   According to a stipulation read into the record, she went with Roberts to retrieve the tapes from a storage facility in Plano.   Halsey told Roberts that the tapes she produced were from the Routier trial.   These tapes were produced during the hearing in the trial court on November 13, 1998.   The appellant expressed concern about the authenticity of the tapes.   The trial court received the tapes with the understanding that the question of their authenticity would be subject to further review.

Also during the hearing on November 13, the experts testified that they performed their review by comparing a total of twelve random pages from four of the ten volumes of Halsey's record of the trial with the corresponding notes and disks.   On each of the four pages, the experts found several differences between what was in the notes and what was on the pages from the record.   They concluded that the only way to account for so many differences between the notes and Halsey's record is that someone listened to tapes from the trial and made changes based on the tapes.4

Halsey's daughter and transcription scopist,5 Suzy Crowley, testified that Halsey gave her tapes of the guilt and punishment phases of trial.   Crowley stated that she used the tapes to make permanent changes to the English translation of the original proceedings on the disks.   She testified that the tapes presented by Roberts looked similar to the ones she had used and that they had labels on them that identified them as being from the Routier trial.   Scopist Michelle Reynolds reviewed and edited the voir dire portion of the trial.

Halsey did not testify at the hearing on November 13, 1998.   The trial court appointed counsel for her.   At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rescinded its prior order of October 30, 1998, to have Halsey review her record and ordered her to cease any proceedings regarding the record.   The trial court said it would appoint a certified reporter, agreeable to both the State and the appellant, to review Halsey's record and determine whether it could be made to conform to what occurred at trial.

On November 19, 1998, the trial court appointed Susan Simmons, a certified court reporter for the United States District Court in Tyler, to perform a review of the guilt and punishment phases of the record, as well as the pretrial hearings.6  The parties and the experts all agreed that Simmons was qualified and competent to perform the review.   During the hearing, the appellant's counsel explained that he was not sure if it was legally permissible or even possible to certify the record.   He reserved the right to offer evidence on this point at a later time.   Halsey appeared with her attorney that day.   To comply with a subpoena duces tecum requesting all materials regarding the appellant's trial, her attorney turned over the notes and disks for the entire trial.   Halsey refused to testify, however, and asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege.

On December 9, 1998, Halsey's attorney produced twelve more tapes, which he claimed were additional tapes from the trial.   Halsey was then relieved of her duties as the official court reporter in this case.   The trial court ordered Halsey to continue to look for more tapes.

On April 1, 1999, the trial court conducted a hearing during which Simmons testified that she had revised the Halsey record of the guilt and punishment phases of the appellant's trial.   Simmons submitted the revised record (“Simmons record”) and her red-lined copy of the Halsey record that reflected all of the changes that she had made.   Counsel for the appellant and the State were not permitted to question Simmons directly.7  Before the hearing, the trial court provided to the parties the questions it would ask Simmons.   The parties were permitted to submit written questions to the trial court, and the trial court read the questions that it concluded were relevant and not repetitive.   The trial court instructed the parties not to object to questions during the testimony;  they were directed to submit those objections before the next hearing.   The trial court stated that it would also afford the parties an opportunity to submit a bill of exceptions.   The parties were given a break during the testimony to submit further questions based on the testimony that had already been heard.

Simmons testified about the standard procedures for preparing a record of proceedings.   First, during the proceedings, the certified court reporter writes on a machine notes of what occurs.   The notes include a list of the people who are present, the date of the proceedings, the name of the proceedings, the testimony taken, and the list of exhibits.   The machine simultaneously prints the symbols onto the notes and records the symbols onto a disk or hard drive.   The symbols on the notes cannot be read or deciphered by someone without some training as a court reporter or scopist.   The notes are labeled with the date and subject matter.   It is common for the court reporter to use an audiotape recorder as a backup.   Generally, the recorder is connected to the microphones on the witness stand, the attorneys' tables, and the judge's bench.

Simmons testified that after the proceedings are over, the court reporter takes the disk to a computer and uses software, to which the reporter's personal dictionary has been added.   The dictionary in the software produces an English translation of the symbols.   The computer produces a split screen on the monitor, which shows the symbols on one side and the English translation on the other side.   The English translation will show some “untranslates,” which are symbols that the software does not recognize.   After the reporter enters the correct word, the symbol for the word and its translation are added to the reporter's personal dictionary.

According to Simmons's testimony, if the reporter uses a scopist, and most do, the translation is put on a duplicate disk, which is given to a scopist along with the backup tapes.   The scopist performs the first edit.   Ordinarily, the scopist loads the disk and listens to the tapes going line-by-line checking for corrections and unrecognized words.   Then this edited version is saved on another disk to leave intact the original English translation that was produced at trial,8 and all the materials are returned to the reporter.

Simmons indicated that the reporter, after receiving the materials from the scopist, proofreads either the hard copy of the new translation or the on-screen copy while listening to the tapes.   Then the reporter proofreads the record one more time, checks for spelling errors, and prints and certifies the record.

Simmons testified about her work in the appellant's case.   She explained that she followed the instructions in the trial court's order.   The trial court had not ordered Simmons to certify the record;  she was ordered to review the record from the guilt and punishment phases of the trial and to certify it if possible.   She possessed the Halsey record, the disks, tapes, notes, and some handwritten notations by Halsey.   She followed the procedure that is ordinarily employed when a court reporter is unable to produce the record because of either death or disability.

Simmons testified that she first went through the notes and the tapes to be sure that she had them for each volume of the Halsey record she had been assigned.   She said that it appeared that she had been provided with a complete set of materials for the guilt and punishment phases of the trial.   She said it was possible to create a certifiable record based on the materials provided.   The notes prepared on the machine appeared to be complete with no gaps in the proceedings and within the range of competent reporting.   The disks were in useable form and appeared to be complete.   The tapes were audible and seemed to be complete with no discernible gaps or alterations.

Simmons testified that she started the review process by listening to the tapes while going through the Halsey record line-by-line.   She marked the corrections onto her copy of the Halsey record.   When she had questions, she flipped to the appropriate portion of the notes.   She did not perform a systematic review of the notes.   She was able to identify witnesses when they stated their names at the beginning of their testimony.   If a voice was not identified in this manner, she used the notes, which contained symbols identifying the speakers.

Simmons then took the marked version of the Halsey record and the disks to her scopist.   The scopist copied each disk onto her hard drive.   Then she made the changes marked in pen and saved the files on new disks so that there would be no alteration of the disks provided by Halsey.   The scopist printed a hard copy of the changes.   Simmons proofread the hard-copy by doing a page-by-page comparison of the changes.

This procedure was followed until all of the volumes for the guilt and punishment phases were completed.   Then Simmons prepared a master index, exhibit index, and witness index, which was compared to the scopist's list.   Three hard copies of the final edited version (“Simmons record”) were produced along with disks with a universal translation.9

Simmons testified that she believed that Halsey used more than one scopist to create the record.   It is standard practice for the reporter who actually heard the trial to review the changes a scopist makes using the tapes.   It is normal for the final record to be different in some respects from the unedited notes.   The purpose of editing the notes is to make them reflect, as nearly as possible, what happened at trial.   Simmons said that the Halsey record was inaccurate and poorly prepared.   She opined that the deficiencies in the Halsey record were based on a lack of proper editing.   Simmons did not attend any of the proceedings in Kerrville and had no personal knowledge of what happened at trial.   But Simmons testified that she believed, based on the materials provided and her expertise, she was able to render a complete and accurate record that conforms to what occurred at trial.   She said that, if the materials did not contain a complete and accurate account of the proceedings, then the Simmons record could suffer from the same flaws.   But she believed that the materials provided accurate information for preparing the record.   Simmons has reconstructed trial records in other cases, and she was able to certify records in those cases.   In her expert opinion, the record as prepared by her had been made to conform to what happened at trial to ninety-five percent accuracy.

On April 26, 1999, the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the trial court to ensure that the entire record, including voir dire and pretrial proceedings, conformed to what happened at trial.   We ordered the trial court to independently review other parts of the record in the same manner as it had the guilt and punishment phases.   On May 4, 1999, the trial court appointed Simmons and her scopist to prepare the remaining portions of the record.

On October 14, 1999, a hearing was held to receive the remaining portions of the record that Simmons had completed.   She testified that the tapes were audible and seemed to have no gaps or alterations, the disks for the volumes-other than Volume 16-were useable, and the notes-although there were mistakes-could be used to the extent she needed them.   She testified that, once again, she was able to certify that the record conformed to what occurred at trial.   She testified that she used the same procedures used to complete the guilt and punishment phases of the record, with one exception.   For Volume 16, there was no disk.   Therefore, Simmons proofread the hard copy of the Halsey record with the tapes and had her scopist retype the entire volume.

Later, the parties and the trial court became aware that Volumes 10 and 11 had not been sent to Simmons for preparation.   The materials were then sent to Simmons, and she was ordered to review the materials in the same manner as she had reviewed the other portions of the trial.   The trial court ordered Simmons to revise and certify a record if possible.10

At a hearing on January 28, 2000, Simmons testified that she followed the same procedure for preparing and certifying the record, except for the first 54 pages of Volume 10.11  These pages contained the proceedings for October 21, 1996.   For those 54 pages, Simmons had the Halsey record, the notes, and the disk, but no tape.   Going line-by-line, she compared the Halsey record with the notes taken on the day the proceedings occurred.   She noted that there did not appear to be any gaps in the notes and that they were in good and useable form.   Simmons refused to certify these pages, however.   She explained that, based on the portions of the record she had prepared already and the state of the Halsey record, she was not comfortable certifying the first 54 pages without a tape to compare to the Halsey record.   She said that her record for the first 54 pages of Volume 10 is an accurate transcription of Halsey's notes.   Her decision not to certify was based on the following facts:  she was not present at trial;  she had no tape to use as a backup;  and her review of the rest of the record indicated that she needed a tape to correct the record because it had been edited so poorly.

Simmons testified that on the tape for the afternoon session of court on October 21, 1996, in a conversation between Halsey and someone from the Sheriff's Department, Halsey mentioned that she needed some batteries.12  Simmons believed that this might explain the absence of a tape for the morning session.   Simmons believed, however, that a tape existed for the morning session because there were words that appeared in the Halsey record that did not appear in the notes.   At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced that it would give the parties 120 days in which to review the entire record and make objections.

On February 9, 2000, the trial court issued an order stating that Volumes 10 and 11 of the Simmons record should replace the same volumes of the Halsey record because the Halsey record did not conform to what occurred at trial.   The Court, by agreement of the parties, gave the parties until March 6, 2000, to file objections to the Simmons record.

On March 2, 2000, the appellant filed written objections to the Simmons record and a written request for a hearing to resolve factual disputes about the record.   The State's response to the appellant's written objections was filed April 28, 2000.   On September 1, 2000, the trial court scheduled a hearing on the appellant's objections to the record to take place on September 8, 2000.   The appellant's attorney subpoenaed several witnesses, including Judy Miller, Mary Docklar, Jerry Calloway, Doug Mulder, Jeff Crilley, Lindsey Roberts, Toby Shook, and Greg Davis.

On September 7, 2000, the trial court issued findings on the record and an order cancelling the hearing scheduled for the next day.   The findings say that the trial court reviewed the orders issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals, the record from all hearings held to comply with the orders issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals, the findings and orders of the trial court, the appellant's objections to the record, and the State's response.   The trial court found that the appellant's objections were clear and concise and would apprise the Court of Criminal Appeals of the appellant's concerns about the record.   It found that the appellant's motions to suppress evidence in the proceedings on the record were beyond the scope of the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeals.   It also found that an evidentiary hearing as requested by the appellant was not necessary to comply with the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the orders had been complied with, and that it would not hold any other hearings unless the Court of Criminal Appeals so ordered.

In response to the trial court's order cancelling the hearing, the appellant filed her Formal Bill of Exception No. 1 and a Motion for a Hearing to Make an Offer of Proof on September 25, 2000.

The trial court responded with a finding that it no longer had jurisdiction of the case.   The court forwarded the appellant's pleadings to the Court of Criminal Appeals without taking action.

Some articles about Darlie:

Routier v. State

Darlie Lynn ROUTIER, Appellant,

v.

The STATE of Texas.

No. 72795.

May 21, 2003

J. Stephen Cooper, Dallas, for Appellant.John R. Rolater, Jr., Asst. DA, Dallas, Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for State.

The appellant was convicted of the capital murder of a child under six years of age.  Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(8).   Pursuant to the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death.  Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(g).  Direct appeal to this Court is automatic.  Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(h).  The appellant raises fourteen points of error.   We shall affirm.

The evidence that supports the verdict shows that the appellant stabbed and killed her two sons, Damon and Devon,1 while her husband and infant son were asleep upstairs in the house.   The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction, and therefore, it is not necessary to set out the evidence in detail.

I. Claims Regarding the Record

In her brief, the appellant makes several claims regarding the preparation and certification of the reporter's record in addition to claims regarding her trial.   We will address claims dealing with the accuracy of the record before dealing with the appellant's claims regarding her trial.   Specifically, the appellant complains that she is entitled to a new trial because of problems with the reporter's record.   She argues that, at a minimum, she is entitled to a hearing before the record can be used to decide her appeal.   A review of the facts pertaining to these points of error is necessary.

The appellant's trial took place in January 1997.   The certified court reporter, Sandra Halsey, took stenographic notes during the trial.   Halsey simultaneously typed notes of the proceedings onto paper strips (“notes”) and onto computer edit disks (“disks”) that automatically translated the stenographic symbols into English.   In April 1998, under an order of contempt issued by this Court the month before,2 Halsey prepared, certified, and filed the original reporter's record in the case (“Halsey record”).

In a motion to correct and clarify Halsey's record, filed October 13, 1998, the appellant raised the first dispute about the accuracy of the record.   An excerpt of the record that had been read to the jury did not match the corresponding portion of the Halsey record.   Also, counsel noted discrepancies about who was present during the trial and when.   The next day this Court granted the appellant's motion and ordered Halsey to prepare, certify, and file a supplemental reporter's record containing any omitted items.   We also ordered the trial court 3 to resolve any dispute raised in the appellant's motion and to ensure that the reporter's record conformed to what occurred at trial.

The trial court conducted a hearing and decided that the entire record had to be reviewed to comply with this Court's October 14, 1998 order.   In a hearing held October 30, 1998, pursuant to our order, Halsey testified that she made audiotape recordings (“tapes”) in addition to the notes and disks during the trial.   Halsey claimed that the audiotape recorder worked during only the voir dire portion of the trial.   The trial court ordered Halsey to produce her notes, disks, and tapes from the trial.   The trial court also ordered her to conduct a review of the record and make note of any problems she found or corrections she made.

At a hearing held on November 4, 1998, the trial court appointed three certified court reporters, Tommy Mullins, Judy Miller, and Jerry Calloway (“the experts”), to perform a review and to compare the notes and disks to Halsey's record to determine whether Halsey's record could be certified.

Although Halsey had told the trial court and the experts that she possessed no tapes from the guilt and punishment phases of the trial, on November 12, 1998, she told prosecutor Lindsey Roberts and appellant's counsel Stephen Cooper that tapes from those phases of the trial did exist.   According to a stipulation read into the record, she went with Roberts to retrieve the tapes from a storage facility in Plano.   Halsey told Roberts that the tapes she produced were from the Routier trial.   These tapes were produced during the hearing in the trial court on November 13, 1998.   The appellant expressed concern about the authenticity of the tapes.   The trial court received the tapes with the understanding that the question of their authenticity would be subject to further review.

Also during the hearing on November 13, the experts testified that they performed their review by comparing a total of twelve random pages from four of the ten volumes of Halsey's record of the trial with the corresponding notes and disks.   On each of the four pages, the experts found several differences between what was in the notes and what was on the pages from the record.   They concluded that the only way to account for so many differences between the notes and Halsey's record is that someone listened to tapes from the trial and made changes based on the tapes.4

Halsey's daughter and transcription scopist,5 Suzy Crowley, testified that Halsey gave her tapes of the guilt and punishment phases of trial.   Crowley stated that she used the tapes to make permanent changes to the English translation of the original proceedings on the disks.   She testified that the tapes presented by Roberts looked similar to the ones she had used and that they had labels on them that identified them as being from the Routier trial.   Scopist Michelle Reynolds reviewed and edited the voir dire portion of the trial.

Halsey did not testify at the hearing on November 13, 1998.   The trial court appointed counsel for her.   At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court rescinded its prior order of October 30, 1998, to have Halsey review her record and ordered her to cease any proceedings regarding the record.   The trial court said it would appoint a certified reporter, agreeable to both the State and the appellant, to review Halsey's record and determine whether it could be made to conform to what occurred at trial.

On November 19, 1998, the trial court appointed Susan Simmons, a certified court reporter for the United States District Court in Tyler, to perform a review of the guilt and punishment phases of the record, as well as the pretrial hearings.6  The parties and the experts all agreed that Simmons was qualified and competent to perform the review.   During the hearing, the appellant's counsel explained that he was not sure if it was legally permissible or even possible to certify the record.   He reserved the right to offer evidence on this point at a later time.   Halsey appeared with her attorney that day.   To comply with a subpoena duces tecum requesting all materials regarding the appellant's trial, her attorney turned over the notes and disks for the entire trial.   Halsey refused to testify, however, and asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege.

On December 9, 1998, Halsey's attorney produced twelve more tapes, which he claimed were additional tapes from the trial.   Halsey was then relieved of her duties as the official court reporter in this case.   The trial court ordered Halsey to continue to look for more tapes.

On April 1, 1999, the trial court conducted a hearing during which Simmons testified that she had revised the Halsey record of the guilt and punishment phases of the appellant's trial.   Simmons submitted the revised record (“Simmons record”) and her red-lined copy of the Halsey record that reflected all of the changes that she had made.   Counsel for the appellant and the State were not permitted to question Simmons directly.7  Before the hearing, the trial court provided to the parties the questions it would ask Simmons.   The parties were permitted to submit written questions to the trial court, and the trial court read the questions that it concluded were relevant and not repetitive.   The trial court instructed the parties not to object to questions during the testimony;  they were directed to submit those objections before the next hearing.   The trial court stated that it would also afford the parties an opportunity to submit a bill of exceptions.   The parties were given a break during the testimony to submit further questions based on the testimony that had already been heard.

Simmons testified about the standard procedures for preparing a record of proceedings.   First, during the proceedings, the certified court reporter writes on a machine notes of what occurs.   The notes include a list of the people who are present, the date of the proceedings, the name of the proceedings, the testimony taken, and the list of exhibits.   The machine simultaneously prints the symbols onto the notes and records the symbols onto a disk or hard drive.   The symbols on the notes cannot be read or deciphered by someone without some training as a court reporter or scopist.   The notes are labeled with the date and subject matter.   It is common for the court reporter to use an audiotape recorder as a backup.   Generally, the recorder is connected to the microphones on the witness stand, the attorneys' tables, and the judge's bench.

Simmons testified that after the proceedings are over, the court reporter takes the disk to a computer and uses software, to which the reporter's personal dictionary has been added.   The dictionary in the software produces an English translation of the symbols.   The computer produces a split screen on the monitor, which shows the symbols on one side and the English translation on the other side.   The English translation will show some “untranslates,” which are symbols that the software does not recognize.   After the reporter enters the correct word, the symbol for the word and its translation are added to the reporter's personal dictionary.

According to Simmons's testimony, if the reporter uses a scopist, and most do, the translation is put on a duplicate disk, which is given to a scopist along with the backup tapes.   The scopist performs the first edit.   Ordinarily, the scopist loads the disk and listens to the tapes going line-by-line checking for corrections and unrecognized words.   Then this edited version is saved on another disk to leave intact the original English translation that was produced at trial,8 and all the materials are returned to the reporter.

Simmons indicated that the reporter, after receiving the materials from the scopist, proofreads either the hard copy of the new translation or the on-screen copy while listening to the tapes.   Then the reporter proofreads the record one more time, checks for spelling errors, and prints and certifies the record.

Simmons testified about her work in the appellant's case.   She explained that she followed the instructions in the trial court's order.   The trial court had not ordered Simmons to certify the record;  she was ordered to review the record from the guilt and punishment phases of the trial and to certify it if possible.   She possessed the Halsey record, the disks, tapes, notes, and some handwritten notations by Halsey.   She followed the procedure that is ordinarily employed when a court reporter is unable to produce the record because of either death or disability.

Simmons testified that she first went through the notes and the tapes to be sure that she had them for each volume of the Halsey record she had been assigned.   She said that it appeared that she had been provided with a complete set of materials for the guilt and punishment phases of the trial.   She said it was possible to create a certifiable record based on the materials provided.   The notes prepared on the machine appeared to be complete with no gaps in the proceedings and within the range of competent reporting.   The disks were in useable form and appeared to be complete.   The tapes were audible and seemed to be complete with no discernible gaps or alterations.

Simmons testified that she started the review process by listening to the tapes while going through the Halsey record line-by-line.   She marked the corrections onto her copy of the Halsey record.   When she had questions, she flipped to the appropriate portion of the notes.   She did not perform a systematic review of the notes.   She was able to identify witnesses when they stated their names at the beginning of their testimony.   If a voice was not identified in this manner, she used the notes, which contained symbols identifying the speakers.

Simmons then took the marked version of the Halsey record and the disks to her scopist.   The scopist copied each disk onto her hard drive.   Then she made the changes marked in pen and saved the files on new disks so that there would be no alteration of the disks provided by Halsey.   The scopist printed a hard copy of the changes.   Simmons proofread the hard-copy by doing a page-by-page comparison of the changes.

This procedure was followed until all of the volumes for the guilt and punishment phases were completed.   Then Simmons prepared a master index, exhibit index, and witness index, which was compared to the scopist's list.   Three hard copies of the final edited version (“Simmons record”) were produced along with disks with a universal translation.9

Simmons testified that she believed that Halsey used more than one scopist to create the record.   It is standard practice for the reporter who actually heard the trial to review the changes a scopist makes using the tapes.   It is normal for the final record to be different in some respects from the unedited notes.   The purpose of editing the notes is to make them reflect, as nearly as possible, what happened at trial.   Simmons said that the Halsey record was inaccurate and poorly prepared.   She opined that the deficiencies in the Halsey record were based on a lack of proper editing.   Simmons did not attend any of the proceedings in Kerrville and had no personal knowledge of what happened at trial.   But Simmons testified that she believed, based on the materials provided and her expertise, she was able to render a complete and accurate record that conforms to what occurred at trial.   She said that, if the materials did not contain a complete and accurate account of the proceedings, then the Simmons record could suffer from the same flaws.   But she believed that the materials provided accurate information for preparing the record.   Simmons has reconstructed trial records in other cases, and she was able to certify records in those cases.   In her expert opinion, the record as prepared by her had been made to conform to what happened at trial to ninety-five percent accuracy.

On April 26, 1999, the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the trial court to ensure that the entire record, including voir dire and pretrial proceedings, conformed to what happened at trial.   We ordered the trial court to independently review other parts of the record in the same manner as it had the guilt and punishment phases.   On May 4, 1999, the trial court appointed Simmons and her scopist to prepare the remaining portions of the record.

On October 14, 1999, a hearing was held to receive the remaining portions of the record that Simmons had completed.   She testified that the tapes were audible and seemed to have no gaps or alterations, the disks for the volumes-other than Volume 16-were useable, and the notes-although there were mistakes-could be used to the extent she needed them.   She testified that, once again, she was able to certify that the record conformed to what occurred at trial.   She testified that she used the same procedures used to complete the guilt and punishment phases of the record, with one exception.   For Volume 16, there was no disk.   Therefore, Simmons proofread the hard copy of the Halsey record with the tapes and had her scopist retype the entire volume.

Later, the parties and the trial court became aware that Volumes 10 and 11 had not been sent to Simmons for preparation.   The materials were then sent to Simmons, and she was ordered to review the materials in the same manner as she had reviewed the other portions of the trial.   The trial court ordered Simmons to revise and certify a record if possible.10

At a hearing on January 28, 2000, Simmons testified that she followed the same procedure for preparing and certifying the record, except for the first 54 pages of Volume 10.11  These pages contained the proceedings for October 21, 1996.   For those 54 pages, Simmons had the Halsey record, the notes, and the disk, but no tape.   Going line-by-line, she compared the Halsey record with the notes taken on the day the proceedings occurred.   She noted that there did not appear to be any gaps in the notes and that they were in good and useable form.   Simmons refused to certify these pages, however.   She explained that, based on the portions of the record she had prepared already and the state of the Halsey record, she was not comfortable certifying the first 54 pages without a tape to compare to the Halsey record.   She said that her record for the first 54 pages of Volume 10 is an accurate transcription of Halsey's notes.   Her decision not to certify was based on the following facts:  she was not present at trial;  she had no tape to use as a backup;  and her review of the rest of the record indicated that she needed a tape to correct the record because it had been edited so poorly.

Simmons testified that on the tape for the afternoon session of court on October 21, 1996, in a conversation between Halsey and someone from the Sheriff's Department, Halsey mentioned that she needed some batteries.12  Simmons believed that this might explain the absence of a tape for the morning session.   Simmons believed, however, that a tape existed for the morning session because there were words that appeared in the Halsey record that did not appear in the notes.   At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced that it would give the parties 120 days in which to review the entire record and make objections.

On February 9, 2000, the trial court issued an order stating that Volumes 10 and 11 of the Simmons record should replace the same volumes of the Halsey record because the Halsey record did not conform to what occurred at trial.   The Court, by agreement of the parties, gave the parties until March 6, 2000, to file objections to the Simmons record.

On March 2, 2000, the appellant filed written objections to the Simmons record and a written request for a hearing to resolve factual disputes about the record.   The State's response to the appellant's written objections was filed April 28, 2000.   On September 1, 2000, the trial court scheduled a hearing on the appellant's objections to the record to take place on September 8, 2000.   The appellant's attorney subpoenaed several witnesses, including Judy Miller, Mary Docklar, Jerry Calloway, Doug Mulder, Jeff Crilley, Lindsey Roberts, Toby Shook, and Greg Davis.

On September 7, 2000, the trial court issued findings on the record and an order cancelling the hearing scheduled for the next day.   The findings say that the trial court reviewed the orders issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals, the record from all hearings held to comply with the orders issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals, the findings and orders of the trial court, the appellant's objections to the record, and the State's response.   The trial court found that the appellant's objections were clear and concise and would apprise the Court of Criminal Appeals of the appellant's concerns about the record.   It found that the appellant's motions to suppress evidence in the proceedings on the record were beyond the scope of the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeals.   It also found that an evidentiary hearing as requested by the appellant was not necessary to comply with the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the orders had been complied with, and that it would not hold any other hearings unless the Court of Criminal Appeals so ordered.

In response to the trial court's order cancelling the hearing, the appellant filed her Formal Bill of Exception No. 1 and a Motion for a Hearing to Make an Offer of Proof on September 25, 2000.

The trial court responded with a finding that it no longer had jurisdiction of the case.   The court forwarded the appellant's pleadings to the Court of Criminal Appeals without taking action.

Routier was ultimately convicted of murdering the younger of her two sons, and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. Prosecutors did not try Routier for the death of her older son, holding his murder in reserve in the event she was acquitted in the first murder trial or her conviction was overturned on appeal, as there is no statute of limitations on any murder charge in Texas. Routier's defense attorney, Douglas Mulder, was the prosecutor responsible for the wrongful conviction and subsequent death penalty (both since overturned) of Randall Adams in 1977. The Adams case is profiled in the documentary The Thin Blue Line.