Emily Brooks
The trial of a woman who allegedly gunned down her boyfriend was supposed to start a month ago. After the latest suppression hearing, Emily Brooks, 28, had yet another court date set for Jan. 23 of next year.
Ms. Brooks allegedly killed her ex-boyfriend, Eric Burchfield, in July of 2017. The suppression hearing surrounded the question of whether or not a particular act she committed during her encounter with the police should be suppressed.
After Burchfield’s mother described Ms. Brooks as the woman who killed her son, the defendant became the prime suspect. During previous testimony by investigator Phillip McClain, he said that when Ms. Brooks saw police, she fled on foot and attempted to grab what would later be revealed as a gun. It was then that she was handcuffed for a second time and taken into custody.
On Tuesday, investigator McClain told a slightly different story. He wanted to set the record straight, and admitted that he had slightly mis-remembered the events of that day. He had previously said he was there when she was detained for the first time, when in reality, he did not arrive until after she had been handcuffed.
Investigator Robin Davenport, who was there when the events occurred, told the court what happened. He described how the woman who was once described as having long blonde hair appeared before them with a red buzz cut. After being detained, she somehow slipped out of the handcuffs and tried to run away. Just as investigator Davenport tackled her, she tried to reach into a bag lying on the ground. She was then detained a second time.
Defense attorney Boyd Patterson argued that there was no basis or probable cause for his client being handcuffed the first time. He said that the only reason they had to detain her was because Ms. Brooks was named by a distraught mother. Because he believed the handcuffing was uncalled for, he argued anything involving the gun in the bag should be suppressed.
Prosecuting attorney Crystle Carrion said the opposite, pointing to the change in appearance, the mother’s identification, and Ms. Brooks’ attempted escape as reason enough to have probable cause to arrest. Prosecutor Carrion included the idea that Ms. Brooks’ escape itself was enough to be considered resisting arrest, which in and of itself is a crime.
After hearing the second round of arguments, Judge Don Poole decided he needed time to rule on whether the presence of a gun in the bag should be suppressed or not. The attorneys agreed upon a date of Jan. 23 to meet again, most likely in order to set a trial date. As Judge Poole pointed out, the case is getting old.