As a summer trial looms, the case against Terri Storer for two homicides could still be dismissed due to potential breaches of attorney-client privilege.
Storer was indicted on two counts of murder for the 2019 shooting of Jeremiah and Jennifer Thomas. Randy Barnhart was indicted on two counts of accessory after the fact to murder.
Earlier this year, the defense moved the indictment be dismissed as a result of an email between attorney and client potentially being read by investigators before the case was indicted. In March, the lead investigator Senior Trooper B.J. Borsman of the West Virginia State Police testified he had opened an email produced from Google with a warrant.
“I didn’t read the email,” Borsman testified. “I opened the link for the email. I was able to determine, based on the first couple of words, … and I may be completely wrong, … I believed it to be an email shared from a client to an attorney.”
Greenbrier County Circuit Court Judge Robert Richardson left the record open after that hearing, allowing the defense and prosecution to submit additional evidence. The potential of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBA) reviewing the computer in question to see which emails were opened and/or read was introduced on March 11.
“The essential request to the FBI was to be a tracing of Trooper Borsman’s steps,” explained Greenbrier County Prosecuting Attorney Pat Via. “The emails that were opened, those that weren’t, things of that nature. [They could potentially] electronically be able to follow what Trooper Borsman did or did not do with respect to the material issue. Upon further consultation with the Bureau, they have agreed to undertake the work. … Until they get into the computer, they could not provide any assurance that they could provide us answers. … I think it’s fair to say there was some level of confidence that they could achieve some of the tasks, a little less confidence on some of the rest of it. [The computer is] currently in the evidence room at the West Virginia State Police at the Lewisburg detachment.”
However, this option came with an objection from Storer’s defense attorney, Brandon Johnson.
“We wanted someone there as a representative for the defendant, and we had secured someone that would do that,” explained Johnson. “What Pat Via told us [is] the FBI simply found that was something they would not agree to do, which I find a little shocking. If the shoe was on the other foot, they certainly would want a representative there. I think it’s because of that very fact, that they won’t cooperate, that we feel like there needs to be some other avenue that we pursue. We don’t particularly want to delay this, but we didn’t cause it. … I’m pretty shocked that’s the FBI’s position.”
“I can confirm that,” Via said. “I had proposed a defense representative be present and I was told that they’re not going to do that. It would be a circumstance where they and they alone would do the analysis and provide us with their findings.”
Without another person in the room representing the defendant, the FBI could be out as a potential way to resolve the issue. However, if another party is found that could accomplish the same task, the state has similar concerns for a different reason.
“I suspect that there is significant confidential information concerning other investigations that may be on the computer,” Via noted. “We would need to have some mechanism to provide for the security of that other information without damaging or interfering with access to the information to be examined.”
Richardson approved the parties to find another solution, with the case moving forward in early May.
“We’ll remind the parties that this case is scheduled for trial this summer,” said Richardson. “We do have some time but not an unlimited amount of time.”
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.