1. The defense counsel received many crucial discovery items from the Solicitor’s office in the two weeks leading up to trial. Some discovery items were received by the defense just 4 days before trial. In all totaling nearly a thousand pages of important documents were received during the 2 weeks before trial. The importance of these items and the sheer volume of these items, coupled with the inadequate time to properly and thoroughly review these items before trial rendered the defense unprepared and ineffective. As a result, the defense was at an unfair disadvantage throughout trial.

2. It was known by the defense counsel that Kimberly Renee Poole suffered from a childhood of emotional, sexual and physical abuse. This information was told to Bill Diggs by Kimberly herself on at least one occasion. The defense counsel neglected to pursue this vital piece of information in regards to Kimberly’s mental state, and neglected to provide Kimberly with a psychological expert defense witness at trial. This expert testimony would have had relevance during the police interrogations with Kimberly and would have had relevance for the jury to understand certain decisions and situations in Kimberly’s marriage. By neglectfully omitting this vital information of Kimberly’s childhood of emotional, sexual and physical abuse, and by not providing Kimberly with an expert psychological defense witness, the jury was wrongfully led to believe that Kimberly was of sound mind, when in fact due to her history of childhood abuse, she was emotionally vulnerable to coercion by the police and vulnerable to exploitation by sexual predators in her marriage (Danny Shrewsbury, one of the 3 men she had an affair with, is now a registered sex offender).

3. The defense counsel neglected to present Kimberly Renee Poole’s childhood of emotional, sexual and physical abuse as a relevant mitigating factor to be considered for sentencing which would have spared her from a life without parole sentence.

4. Public Defender Orrie West met with Kimberly Renee Poole only once before trial. This one meeting was not to inform, but to instruct and demand Kimberly to take the plea deal of 30 years which required her to admit to something she did not do (admission of conspiracy and murder) and required her to provide information on something she did not know (the location of the gun). Orrie West was unwilling to provide Kimberly with a proper defense from the beginning, as evidenced by her actions during the one time she met with her. This negligence and lack of interest to defend subsequently resulted in providing Kimberly with inadequate and ineffective counsel before and during trial.

5. The defense counsel neglected to provide expert defense witnesses to properly rebut and address Kimberly Renee Poole’s (false) confession and to argue that the police procedures and tactics used (Reid Interrogation Technique) often illicit such false confessions on people with emotional (mental) vulnerabilities. Kimberly was highly vulnerable to coercion because of her childhood of emotional, sexual and physical abuse. This deprived Kimberly of available expert testimony that was crucial for the jury to know concerning the probability of false confessions and police interrogation tactics used that tend to illicit.

6. The defense counsel neglected to provide expert defense witnesses to properly rebut and address the Hobbs’ eyewitness identification. Eyewitness misidentification is highly probable, and in this specific situation almost a certainty with the assailant being 20 plus feet away, it being at night, seeing this person for only a few seconds, and with the eyewitnesses being shown a photo lineup nearly two weeks later. The jury was deprived of this crucial expert testimony to also consider; scientific evidence and memory studies coupled with this particular eyewitness situation that would at best make their eyewitness identification highly improbable under these circumstances.

7. The defense counsel neglected to challenge the detective’s testimony that the defendant was not a suspect until after her arrest for Obstruction of Justice the night of June 13th. The defense counsel failed to present evidence from the 5:10am June 10th interrogation, at which time the defendant was never informed of her Miranda rights and was interrogated as a suspect. It is clearly evident that the Reid Interrogation Technique was used during this 5:10am June 10th encounter. By not presenting this evidence, the jury had no reason to doubt the detective’s testimony, when in fact the detectives misled the jury. With this evidence being neglectfully omitted, the jury was deprived the chance to view the detectives as untrustworthy. This was critical information for the jury to know that could have made a significant impact by initiating jurors to question the police investigation as a whole (their tunnel vision from the beginning, the improper influence of the Poole family on the investigation) and should have been brought up at trial.

8. The defense counsel neglected to challenge the John Boyd Frazier dayplanner evidence presented at trial. John Boyd Frazier had marked all significant dates, from not just the defendant, but from other friends and family as well. Other anniversary and birthday dates were populated in the dayplanner. Therefore having the anniversary date for the defendant marked, among the many other anniversary dates marked, was not unusual and the jury was left in the dark and presumed to believe there was significance for John Boyd Frazier to have marked the defendant’s anniversary in his dayplanner, when in fact it was not significant for him to have done this.

9. The defense counsel neglected to support Marie Summey’s receipt evidence with pictures of the clothes that Kimberly purchased for Brent in the weeks before their vacation. The prosecution’s objection (because they couldn’t tell/distinguish that the clothes were purchased for Brent and not the defendant) was left to stand because the defense was inadequate in preparing the required proof that Kimberly spent that large sum of money on clothes for her husband in the weeks before their vacation. This objection left to stand rendered the defense witness (Marie Summey) ineffective in arguing that her daughter did not want Brent killed because her daughter had recently spent thousands of dollars on clothes for her husband a few weeks before the vacation.

10. The defense counsel neglected to present evidence (email/letter) that Brent was looking forward to this upcoming vacation and that it was his idea, as Kimberly had always maintained, to have relations outdoors sometime during. This evidence was important to present to the jury to challenge the prosecution’s theory that it was Kimberly’s idea to have relations outdoors to lure her husband as part of the plan and that it was solely Kimberly’s idea to go on this vacation to Myrtle Beach, and that Brent was an unwilling and uninterested participant. By not presenting this crucial evidence to the jury, the jury was led to believe the prosecution’s version of events and intentions without a reasonable and believable alternative explanation as to why they would have relations outdoors.

11. The defense counsel neglected to present evidence that could challenge the prosecution’s theory that Kimberly lured Brent Poole to an isolated spot to be killed. The beach towel to be used for relations was purchased on their way back to the hotel, after their night out, at 10:52pm. This evidence would have supported a defense argument that their relations on the beach was a spontaneous act and not a pre-planned act, that fulfilled Brent’s expressed desire (evidence through the email/letter before the vacation) to have relations outdoors. Being that they would be leaving the next day, this would be the final available night for his request to be fulfilled. This was a spontaneous, last minute purchase, and if it were part of the plan to lure Brent with relations, this beach towel purchase would not have been made last minute, that Kimberly would have purchased this before they went out, or brought this along on their night out, as part of the plan. It would have made more sense, as this was the most important element to the plan, to have this already prepared to bring along on their night out.

12. The defense counsel neglected to present an expert psychological defense witness to explain to the jury that Kimberly suffered a childhood of severe emotional, sexual and physical abuse and that she grew up witnessing the dysfunction of her own parent’s marriage and that growing up in this toxic environment influenced her behavior in regards to the affairs in her own marriage. This information would have presented an explanation to the jury for some of Kimberly’s actions and behaviors within her marriage. By depriving the jury of this information and testimony, the jury was misled to believe that Kimberly’s character was immoral without explanation, which significantly tarnished their view of Kimberly.

13. The defense counsel neglected to challenge the prosecution theory by presenting evidence to the jury that the $50 cash ATM withdrawal the night of the crime (withdrawn to pay the babysitter) was in fact missing and not found in Brent’s recovered wallet. This negligent omission lead the jury to believe that there was no money stolen, that the wallet was found intact and that therefore no legitimate robbery occurred, in line with the prosecution’s false theory that this event was pre-planned.

14. The defense counsel neglected to question the condition that Brent’s wallet was found and to question why it was found soaking wet as it did not rain in North Myrtle Beach from June 9th (night of the crime) through July 5th (day wallet was found).

15. The defense counsel neglected to argue that if this was pre-planned, that it made more sense for Kimberly to keep Brent in the semi-secluded and private wooded area past 82nd Ave until the murder could occur. Kimberly had the means to extend and prolong their relations in this spot if this was in fact pre-planned. And that the crime occurred on their way walking back to the hotel after relations. And that after they noticed someone following behind them they actually sped up their walking pace.

16. The defense counsel neglected to present evidence to the jury that Bill Poole and the Poole family had improperly influenced the direction of the police investigation, as evidenced in the 5:10am June 10th interrogation (interrogated after Detective Altman spoke by phone to the Poole family), that the Poole family harbored anger and resentment towards the defendant before the death of their son because of her previous affairs, and that the Poole family blamed the defendant for the moral choices their son had wanted and made.

17. The defense counsel neglected to argue and challenge the methods used by the police from their investigation to crime scene. This was essential to argue that the police mishandled and made errors in their investigation, in securing the crime scene and gathering evidence, in interviewing witnesses, and that the MBPD was under enormous public pressure to find the assailant. All of this contributed to the police having tunnel vision and focusing on the defendant and her ex-boyfriend as the easiest answer- that the police had tunnel vision from the very beginning and colluded by changing accounts and descriptions of what happened to fit their theory.

18. The defense counsel neglected to challenge the prosecution witnesses, the Bollows, her neighbors, to explain why the defendant would have agreed to their offer to watch the house and to have a spare house key made which would let them have unhindered and unsupervised access to her house (while the defendant was away staying at her parent’s house) if she was involved in Brent Poole’s murder and had something to hide? The defendant had only stopped by the house a few times to get clothes and other essentials but had left the house largely intact and had left their computer there too. The defense counsel also failed to bring up evidence that the Bollows had recently, only 2 to 3 weeks before, filed for bankruptcy and may have had an ulterior motive (reward money) to paint the defendant in a bad light. The jury was uninformed that the Bollows had recently filed for bankruptcy, and that they were in financial distress and therefore had no alternate reason as to why the Bollows would come forward, besides being concerned citizens.

19. The defense counsel neglected to challenge the prosecution’s notion that because the defendant was not fully unpacked that she must have had no intentions of staying. The defense could have brought up examples of how it can take people a couple months to fully unpack after moving, and the defendant had moved up to three different times in a 2 week span. So her not being fully unpacked yet within a few days, or even a few weeks, was well within being normal.

20. The defense counsel neglected to properly cross examine James Bollow, the neighbor, having the jury mislead to believe that the check the defendant was looking for in the mail after the crime was for a large sum of money, when in fact it was for a much smaller sum, which cast the defendant in a bad light to the jurors. By failing to correct James Bollow’s testimony, the jury was improperly reinforced to believe the prosecution’s theory that the defendant was after large sums of money, the life insurance, and this consequently harmed the defendant’s character in the eyes of the jury.

21. The defense counsel neglected to present evidence that would support the argument that the defendant only moved in the John Boyd Frazier as a temporary living solution until she could find a place of her own. This evidence was that John Boyd Frazier rented a storage unit on May1st, around the same time the defendant had moved out, so that she could store her property in this storage unit. After the defendant moved back in with Brent they both went to this storage unit to retrieve her household items. It was important for the defense to show that the defendant was not permanently living with, and had no intentions of permanently staying with John Boyd Frazier. This was important information that the jury should have known and with its omission they were falsely led to believe that the defendant’s motive for staying with John Boyd Frazier was to pursue and/or to keep a romantic relationship with him.

22. The defense counsel neglected to object to the extended trial days, depriving the defendant of adequate defense counsel during her trial. Because of the extended trial days, the trial was unnecessarily accelerated which prohibited and hindered the defense counsel from properly preparing for the next day’s events. The defense and not the prosecution had more to lose and had more at risk (the life of their ‘presumed innocent’ client), and thus unfair. This acceleration of the trial by Judge Cottingham was improper and biased against the defense.

23. The defense counsel neglected to present evidence and argue that the defendant made reservations at the Carolina Winds and when they arrived, their reserved room was not yet ready, and so they accepted the hotel’s offer of a different room that was ready. If this crime was pre-planned with John Boyd Frazier, the defendant would not have deviated, or at least resisted the change from their previously reserved room. It was well within the defendant’s means to delay and to wait until the previously reserved room was made ready. Why would the defendant risk deviating if this was pre-planned? And wouldn’t it make sense then for the defendant to attempt to make contact with John Boyd Frazier to notify him of this room change? For the duration of the defendant’s stay in Myrtle Beach no contact with John Boyd Frazier was ever made.

24. The defense counsel neglected to argue and challenge the babysitter’s version of events on the night they left to go out (around 8pm June 9th). The babysitter got lost finding the correct hotel and arrived 15 minutes late. This was their anniversary night and of course the defendant was excited and antsy to leave and spend some alone time with her husband. Any parent of a two year old will attest to looking forward to when the child is put to bed for some alone time. This is normal. By not having this argument the jury was more inclined to believe the testimony that the defendant was in a hurry to leave (not disputed), but without a reasonable explanation, more inclined to accept the prosecution’s theory that it was because the defendant was on a rushed conspiracy timeline as the reason.