The Case of Darlie Routier

A quiet summer night in suburban Rowlett Texas was shattered on June 5, 1996 by the commission of a horrific crime. In a hysterical call to 911, a twenty-eight year old mother of three, Darlie Routier was crying that an intruder had entered her house and attacked her and her two young sons, Damon and Devon, downstairs in the family room while her husband Darin and youngest son Drake were asleep upstairs.

Stunned police officials began to arrive within minutes of the 911 call to find Devon dead and Damon on the verge of death. Damon would die on the way to the hospital. As the police investigated the crime scene they began to have doubts about Darlie’s story of an intruder or intruders.

A long list of circumstantial forensic evidence including inconsistencies in the blood trail and evidence that a cleanup of blood in the kitchen sink had occurred; the disparity in the type of wounds suffered by the children, which were deep penetrating puncture wounds, and Darlie, which were slashing wounds; the behavior of Darlie, which was considered out of sync with the circumstances; the fact that the family dog, with a history of aversion to strangers, had remained quiet; all of this led police to suspect that the crime scene had been staged and they began to focus their attentions on Darlie herself.

To make a long story short, Darlie was arrested, tried and convicted of the murder of Damon Routier. Since Damon was under 6 years of age, it was Capital Murder in the state of Texas, and she was sentenced to death.

At the trial, in addition to the forensic and other circumstantial evidence, the prosecution went out of its way to paint Darlie as a self-centered, materialistic, dyed platinum hair type who looked upon her kids as stifling the lifestyle she wanted to live. An incident in which Darlie was video taped spraying Silly String over the boys graves while smiling and chewing gum shocked just about everyone, including the jury, and helped to reinforce that characterization.

The problem is that the Silly String incident, on what would have been Devon’s 7th birthday, was taken totally out of context and represented only a minute or two of what was a long solemn ceremony at the gravesite.

So the question is did she do it? In an ongoing process, the defense has raised a number of questions about the evidence, the interpretations of the police and the tactics of the prosecution.

- There are at least two bloody fingerprints for which the source is questionable and which the defense claims proves an intruder was present.
- There are questions about the accuracy of the forensic analysis of a kitchen knife which the prosecution claimed was used to cut a window screen, the supposed entry point, from the inside. Apparently the knife had been dusted for finger prints with a brush made of similar plastic fibers as the screen and it’s never been determined where the fiber residue on the knife came from, the screen or the fingerprint brush.
- There are questions related to blood stains found on Darlie’s nightshirt and on her husband Darin’s pants.
- There are questions related to why the jury never saw the photographs of the bruises on her arms and face sustained by Darlie that night. At least one juror has stated that if he had seen those photos, he would not have voted for conviction.
- There are questions related to the accuracy of the interpretation presented at the trial that Darlie’s knife wounds were self-inflicted “hesitation wounds.”
- There are questions related to a conflict of interest surrounding an agreement by the defense NOT to implicate Darin Routier as a part of Darlie’s defense.
- There are some technical questions related to significant errors in the trial transcript, the admissibility of the “Silly String” episode, while not showing the other solemn portions of the service and the possible coaching of defense witnesses from the hospital where Darlie was treated.
- There are questions related to the alleged “character assassination” strategy of the prosecution, of which the Silly String episode was only one example.

Good old Texas, Incompetence Capital of the Universe. One of the “character assassination” points allowed by the judge to be made by the prosecution was that Darlie didn’t take her kids to church regularly! Oh well, that settles it, she must be a murderer then.

So far the trial judge and the Texas Appeals courts have been unimpressed by the claims made by Darlie’s defense team so a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on November 29, 2005 in the U.S. District Court in San Antonio. The writ contains the standard 6th Amendment lack of effective council claim and the standard 14th Amendment lack of due process claim plus a claim of innocence.

This is a tricky one with lots and lots of circumstantial evidence and, if the truth must be told, a healthy dose of painting Darlie as “not your kind of person” to the conservative folks of Kerr county where the trial was actually held.

To my mind the best excuse for overturning the conviction being given the District Court is the lack of effective council for three reasons.

One, how the hell can someone get effective representation when their lawyer agrees, up front, NOT to present what could be a reasonable alternate scenario, in this case that Darin was involved?

Two, how the hell can an attorney not follow through on the input from reputable, independent investigators that they believed the state’s “staged crime scene” scenario was wrong and could be disproved? Especially considering that the prosecution argued that the failure of the defense to present alternate explanations to the state’s interpretation of the forensic evidence was further evidence that the state’s interpretation was correct. Is it possible that presenting an “alternate theory” would have conflicted in some way, manner, shape or form with the agreement not to point the finger at hubby?

Three, how could the defense have let so many prosecution “experts witnesses” testify on what were essentially gut feels for the “big picture” rather than presenting specific empirical points that could be challenged. How do you challenge something based upon “sort of the big picture” including “the lack of evidence?”

Let’s face it, Darlie was convicted on what a lot of folks would consider subjective voodoo science. Stuff like “the fibers on the knife are consistent with the screen fibers” and “that broken glass was broken on purpose and not accidentally.” What the hell does “consistent with” mean and how the hell can you tell how the glass was broken?

I don’t really buy the character assassination argument as justification for overturning the verdict, although I think it was a rotten trick to take the Silly String episode out of context especially as the tape was made by the police without a warrant. Darlie’s character, or lack of character, was central to the motive being advanced by the state so I don’t see how they could be prevented from presenting “character assassination” evidence.

To be honest with you, I doubt that the good people of Texas would convict a woman of Capital Murder just because they didn’t like her life style.

Nor do I think the defense has put enough new evidence on the table to convince anyone, without a new trial, that Darlie is innocent. I think there are still way too many open questions including:

- How did blood get inside a kitchen cabinet?
- How did the blood in the kitchen sink get washed away? Darlie’s claim that she was wetting towels doesn’t line up with a) there was no water on the floor and b) no running water is heard on the recording of the 911 call.
- How does one resolve the two radically different stories told by Darlie about how she woke up?

Still, I think there is plenty of reason to give Darlie another day in court. Let’s hope the U.S. District Court in San Antonio agrees.