State of West Virginia v. John Wayne Strawser, Jr.
16-1039
| W. Va. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Defendant John Wayne Strawser, Jr. was indicted in Preston County for first-degree murder and fleeing in a vehicle with reckless indifference after Amy Buckingham was shot and died on April 16, 2015; a third count (fleeing causing injury to an officer) was dismissed pretrial.
- No eyewitness saw the shooting; family members testified they heard an argument and a gunshot, saw Strawser leave in a dark Subaru, and later found the victim shot. The victim died of a single close-range gunshot from a non-small-caliber handgun.
- Police located a fired .44 Magnum cartridge at Strawser’s residence search, recovered a .44 Rossi Ranch handgun from a swamp with a neighbor’s help, and found hostile texts and pistol photos on Strawser’s phone after obtaining a warrant six months post-arrest. Forensic testing linked the recovered .44 casing to the Rossi gun and indicated a firing distance consistent with the victim’s wounds.
- Trooper Gallaher initially seized Strawser’s phone and briefly inspected the SIM card and some data without a warrant; the State later obtained a warrant and searched the phone’s contents. The trial court deemed the initial peek unconstitutional but admitted the phone contents under the independent-source doctrine.
- Defense sought (1) funds for a community survey and a change of venue based on media coverage (including separate Pennsylvania charges against Strawser), (2) suppression of phone contents, and (3) exclusion of forensic firearm comparisons and distance analysis as requiring Daubert-style reliability hearings. The trial court denied these motions.
- A jury convicted Strawser of first-degree murder (no mercy recommendation) and fleeing; he received life without parole plus a consecutive 1–5 year term. He appealed denial of judgment of acquittal and/or new trial; the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Strawser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of additional public funds for a community survey violated right to effective assistance and required change of venue | Funding unnecessary; court-approved media/social research and voir dire sufficed to protect fairness | Additional survey needed to prove pervasive local prejudice from media and related Pennsylvania charges | Denial affirmed: existing research and voir dire showed no pervasive bias; additional funding not required |
| Whether change of venue was required due to pretrial publicity | Local publicity did not prevent empaneling impartial jurors after voir dire | Extensive media (including 22,000+ mentions) and juror strikes for cause showed community hostility | Denial affirmed: publicity alone insufficient; voir dire and juror screening adequate |
| Whether cell-phone evidence must be suppressed because of Trooper’s warrantless initial inspection | Warrant later obtained based on independent lawful information; admission avoids putting police worse off | Initial warrantless peek tainted later warrant; phone contents must be excluded | Denial affirmed: independent-source doctrine applies; warrant affidavit did not rely on the unconstitutional peek |
| Whether forensic firearms toolmark and distance analysis required a Daubert-style reliability hearing | Testimony was technical/specialized (subjective comparison), not scientific validation, so no Daubert gatekeeping required | Techniques are scientific and reliability should be vetted before admission | Denial affirmed: court classified methods as technical, admissible without Daubert hearing |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support murder conviction (judgment of acquittal) | Combined circumstantial proof, witness timeline, phone texts and firearm links sufficient to support conviction | No eyewitness and only circumstantial evidence; insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Denial affirmed: viewed most favorably to prosecution, evidence and inferences were sufficient for a reasonable juror to convict |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (recognition that indigent defendants may be entitled to state-funded expert assistance to present a defense)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (independent-source doctrine: evidence obtained from an independent lawful source need not be excluded despite prior unlawful conduct)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (balancing exclusionary-rule policy and admissibility when independent lawful sources exist)
- State v. LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294 (standard for appellate sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Watson v. Inco Alloys Int’l, Inc., 209 W. Va. 234 (distinguishing scientific validation from technical/specialized expert knowledge for admissibility)