The case against Travis Copenhaver, Timothy Smith, Lloyd “Billy” Lightner Jr., and Shannon Earhart continued in Summers County Court under Circuit Court Judge Robert Irons on Friday, December 7, with a hearing to determine if statements given by two of the men could be admissible as evidence in the case.
In October 2017, the four men, accompanied by Mac Brackenrich, pulled into the driveway of Frederick D. Tolliver in a side-by-side. Tolliver then shot at the men, critically wounding Brackenrich.
According to testimony given by a state trooper who responded to the initial incident, the men had been riding a side-by-side, “drinking some beers,” when they had an altercation with Tolliver. After the incident, the group went shooting. On the way back to Earhart’s home, the group then pulled into Tolliver’s driveway “to mess with him after [the earlier] incident,” and Tolliver opened fire on the side-by-side.
Tolliver, shortly following the incident, was arrested and charged with three counts of malicious wounding, and five counts of attempted murder, in Summers County Magistrate Court, but the charges would later be dropped after a Summers County Grand Jury chose not to indict him for the incident.
The same grand jury chose to indict Copenhaver, Smith, Lightner, and Earhart, listing three misdemeanor offenses against West Virginia State Code.
“[The defendants] did unlawfully and knowingly, but not feloniously, conspire to commit the offense of giving false information to a member of the department of public safety and/or obstructing, misdemeanor offenses against the State of West Virginia,” reads the indictment. “[The defendants], being a member of the said conspiracy, committed an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, … give false or misleading information to a member of members of the department of public safety who were acting in their official capacity or capacities, … [and] did, unlawfully and knowingly, by threats, menaces, acts or otherwise, forcibly or illegally hinder, obstruct or attempt to hinder or obstruct a law enforcement officer or officers acting in his or her official capacity or capacities.”
The Friday hearing was scheduled to determine the admissibility of evidence against three of the defendants, including the statements given to the police immediately after the incident and another statement given a day later.
According to the prosecution, Earhart has agreed to a pretrial diversion, who is allegedly cooperating with the investigation. Smith’s lawyer declined to make a case against the admissibility of the statements as evidence, bowing out of the Friday hearing.
Lawyers for both Copenhaver and Lightner argued against the admissibility of four statements: two were taken from Copenhaver and Lightner the night of the shooting, approximately 3 a.m. of October 28, 2017, by State Trooper C.W. Wade. Both were treated as witness statements, as neither was under investigation by police. After taking the statements, both taking notes and recording with an audio recorder, Wade declined to take Smith’s. According to Wade, there were several discrepancies between the stories in his prestatement questions, leading him to not take Smith’s.
Defense lawyers argued the statement should not be admitted, stating that witnesses were not completely made aware of prosecution possibilities at the time of the statements. None of the witnesses were read their Miranda rights, lawyers argued, and the importance of a complete and honest picture of the event was minimized by Wade asking the witnesses to tell him what happened as if they were taking to him “as a friend.” Wade agreed he said this phrase, but also pushed back, stating he stressed the importance of the complete truth before the statement was taken, before he turned the recorder on.
A second set of statements given by Copenhaver and Lightner on October 29 were also considered, with lawyers arguing they were coerced by the State Trooper who took them. According to the testimony of Senior Trooper N.C. Boothe, the officer who first responded to the scene and took the second set of witness statements, he acknowledged he was frustrated when the witnesses arrived and his frustration was visible. Lawyers argued that the officer, in his frustration, intimated the witnesses and coerced the statements.
Irons ruled both statements admissible as evidence in a potential trial, agreeing that officers do not need to read Miranda rights to witnesses before they give a witness statement. The case is expected to continue in the Summers County Court in January.
Read more in the Tuesday, December 11, edition of The West Virginia Daily News.
