stand on my previous testimony. Would you like to have the Court Reporter read again what I said?” After several times getting the same reply, he gave up trying that tactic. He was visibly angry with me.
At that Ferdinand Samper demanded how I (a clergyman) could be there offering privileged communication which is forbidden by law. “How can you, a clergyman, be here testifying against this poor man?” I noted that when he had refused my services as a minister, the confidentiality was negated.
Then I said, “I have not come here to testify AGAINST this man. I have come here to tell the truth as I know it and experienced it. If he had informed us that he was innocent, I would be here telling you that. I am only telling you what I heard him say and what I observed that day in the Sheriff’s Office.”
The Judge threw the case out of court. Police brutality had been soundly disproved.
The Sub Committee Investigating Sex Crime
The authorities were aware and greatly alarmed with the prevalence of sex crimes within the area. A Sub Committee Investigating Sex Crimes was formed and I was one of the members appointed to serve on this committee. The committee requested the presence of Emmett Hashfield’s Parole Officer to answer some of their questions. Why was such a known sex offender so dangerous to the community released on parole? The Parole Officer informed us that if the prisoner had been forced to serve out his full term in jail they would have had less opportunity to legally check on him, but by placing him on parole they would then have the authority to demand his regular reporting to them and following closely his current status.
The Committee brought in the psychiatrist who had cleared Hashfield for parole. We asked what was the realistic or reasonable expectation for complete reformation for such a criminal. It was disconcerting to learn that the chance was minimal … 0% he told us.
I asked why such an offender could not be castrated to prevent further violations. He informed us that castration would not effect the elimination of future sexual crimes because the motivation of such criminals was not the pleasure of sexual fulfillment. A hatred for women and a feeling of lack of power drove sexual offenders to perform their dastardly deeds. We were left with a feeling of powerlessness in the face of the prevalence of such an alarming threat of sexual offenders in our area.
The Murder Trial of Emmett Hashfield
The murder trial of Emmett O. Hashfield was venued to the Monroe County Circuit Court in Bloomington, Indiana with Judge Nat Hill presiding. I was called by the prosecutor to be a key witness. Emmett first appeared in court in a faded orange shirt with his hair disheveled. The intent of the defense was to have him found innocent by reason of insanity and his appearance and actions evidently were designed to facilitate this impression. Hashfield interrupted the proceedings by shouting, “Make him stop it … Make him stop it!” The Judge asked him what he was talking about and Hashfield responded: “He is sending electrical vibrations through the air and it is bothering me.”
Evidently neither the Judge nor the Jury bought this attempt to feign insanity. When it was evident to the defense attorneys that this strategy was not working, the next day Hashfield appeared in court in nice clothing with neat hair — a different man. The Prosecuting Attorneys tried to introduce bloody evidence of the murder of Avril Terry, but the photos of her dismembered body and clothing were deemed too prejudicial to be seen by the jury.
The court ruled that counsel for the accused had not produced testimony from any of the Doctors that would prove the insanity of Emmett Hashfield and that they had failed to sustain their defense of insanity.
I was the final witness in this trial. The Prosecutor had me relate the details of the interview in the Sheriff’s office in which Emmett Hashfield:
1. Denied any incidents of Police brutality.
2. Refused the services of the priest or minister present at the time.
3. Seduced Avril Terry into his car and took her out to the stripper pit on the north side of town to rape her.
4. Thought better of his intentions, changed his mind, and drove her back to town.
5. Released the child from his automobile on the Town Square.
6. Enticed her back into his car with the promise of showing her some wooden carved animals he had which might make a suitable birthday gift.
7. Drove her to his home.
8. Told us that he didn’t want to talk about what happened then and there.
9. Continued his story then by telling us he wrapped her body in a blanket.
10. Took her down to the Ohio River and dumped her body there.
As the final question the prosecutor asked me if, in my opinion, Emmett Hashfield was sane or insane, and I concluded that he was legally sane.
Evidently Attorney Ferdinand Samper had had enough of me for he turned the cross-examination over to his Assistant, Jack Broadfield who identified himself to the court as a former sociopathic consultant for the armed services.
He questioned my testimony for the prosecution at every point. I was cross-examined by him for a grueling 45 minutes. At last he came to the point where he was hired to utilize his previous experience.
He asked what experience I had in equipping me to opine that Emmett O. Hashfield was legally sane. He asked about my formal training and I witnessed that I minored in psychology in both college and seminary.
“All right, Mr. Chamberlin,” he began. “As an ‘expert’ in psychology …” I interrupted him immediately by countering, “I have not claimed to be an expert in psychology!” Again after citing my college and seminary education, he came back again: “Now, as an ‘expert’ in psychology …” and again I countered the same.
“How then can you testify that the defendant here was sane?”
I responded, “Glad that you asked that question. Five minutes before I came into this court room I was in Judge Nat Hill’s library reviewing from his law book the definition of legal sanity. It stated there that legal sanity is the ability to know right from wrong, and the ability to resist a wrongful impulse. Hashfield knew right from wrong when he took Avril Terry out to the stripper pit to rape her and then changed his mind. He knew right from wrong when he changed his mind at the stripper pit. When he brought her back to the town square, he demonstrated his ability to resist a wrongful impulse.”
Emmett O. Hashfield was convicted of the first degree murder of Avril Terry and sentenced to death. When the trial was over, Judge Nat Hill met me in the hallway and said, “Rev. Chamberlin, I can’t say too much about the trial, but I just want you to know that I enjoyed your testimony!” He said that with a broad smile upon his face.
The Prosecutor told me then that “I saved you for the last witness because I knew you would drive the nail in that man’s coffin.” I wished a thousand times that he would not have said that because I live with that haunting thought to this very day.
Emmett Hashfield survived more than a decade on Death Row while motions were made and denied for a mistrial. His death came on an operating table while his tonsils were being surgically removed. He reportedly bled to death.
None of his relatives or friends attended his burial. Had I known about the event I would have at least been willing to appear there to pray and say a few words on his behalf. To have had
