Local News

Hayes defense wants biohazard suit tested in Ackerson killing

Posted December 19, 2013

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Defense attorneys for a Raleigh woman set to go to trial next month for the murder of her husband’s ex-girlfriend say they recently discovered a biohazard suit and a pair of latex gloves that they contend is critical to her defense.

During a hearing Thursday, attorney Johnny Gaskins told Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens that he believes tests on the items, which were found in a Dodge Durango belonging to Amanda Hayes, will show that her husband was the one who killed and dismembered Laura Jean Ackerson more than two years ago.

Hayes, 41, is charged with first-degree murder in the 27-year-old’s death on July 13, 2011. Her remains were found 11 days later in a creek near the Richmond, Texas, home of Hayes' sister.

Hayes' husband, Grant Hayes, was convicted of the crime in September and is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Witnesses testified in his trial that he and Ackerson were involved in a bitter custody dispute over their two young sons and that he lured her to his apartment, killed her, cut up her body and drove with his wife and children to Texas to dispose of the remains.

Amanda Hayes's attorneys have suggested in court documents that any participation their client had was while she was under duress and fearful for her life.

"We don’t know what the state intends to prove," Gaskins said. "If they don’t intend to prove that Grant Hayes was the person who killed Laura Ackerson, then we will do that."

But there were some questions from Stephens as to how crucial the body suit and gloves might be since the state has already proved Grant Hayes was guilty of first-degree murder.

"The question is whether your client had anything to do with it," Stephens told Gaskins.

Prosecutors haven't commented on Amanda Hayes' involvement but have said that she is equally culpable in the crime.

In a response filed late Thursday afternoon to the defense motion, the state said the suit and gloves belonged to investigators and that they were used "to avoid contamination of the vehicle and to make sure no potential evidence was lost."

The items, prosecutors said, were left in plain view on the front seat as part of normal protocol.

"Neither the biohazard suit taken from the Dodge Durango by the defense nor the gloves, which remain in the vehicle, were used in the commission of the murder or dismemberment of Laura Ackerson," the state's motion said.

Gaskins disagreed in an email to WRAL News.

"We have photos that the Raleigh Police Department took of the Durango before they searched it," he said. "The biohazard suit and gloves are inside the vehicle along with the items they later seized. The suit and gloves were there all along."

Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway will rule whether to allow the defense to test the items. It's unclear when that will happen.

11 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • monami Dec 19, 2013

    Red herring.

  • sjb2k1 Dec 19, 2013

    so the state forensics team left the suit and gloves in the vehicle after the search was over?

  • ifcdirector Dec 19, 2013

    How could they miss an entire suit?

  • jurydoc Dec 19, 2013

    You don't have to wonder where it was, just read a little, "Raleigh police never collected it during their search of the SUV, which has been in police custody since Hayes' arrest on July 25, 2011."

  • monami Dec 19, 2013

    Yes, the suit did "just now show up" when the attorney took the vehicle for 48 hours over the weekend (last weekend, 2+ years after the murder). Wonder where it was?

  • jurydoc Dec 19, 2013

    This suit didn't just now "show up." Based on yesterday's article, "In a motion filed Monday, Johnny Gaskins said the find came recently after a court-approved request for defense investigators to search the Dodge Durango of his client, Amanda Perry Hayes." It is a defense attorney's responsibility to VIGOROUSLY defend his/her client. Whether or not you "see" the reason for admitting the evidence is irrelevant.

  • feistyredhead2001 Dec 19, 2013

    Hmmm... something isn't sounding right.... This suit is just now showing up?... and so the person wearing it at the time of an investigation just took it off and threw it in the water liek .. nah.. i dont need this no more. I don't think so! She is just as guilty as he is, she still has that sick smart smirt on her face and here it is 6 days till Christmas and those children are forever without a mother and neither party feels remorse for those boys. SHE IS GUILTY TOO... NICE TRY Defense attorney !!!

  • anti-Hans Dec 19, 2013

    She did it, he did it. Let's move on.

  • anotherbabyboomer Dec 19, 2013

    Oh how amazing that it shows up now. They both were hoping to blame each other in hope to both get off. Now that he has been found guilty she comes up with the suit and gloves to help her case. Sounds like a plan to me. I think just because she did not do the actual killing does not mean she did not take an active part and is just as guity as he.

  • LKG-Lover Dec 19, 2013

    I don't see her being under duress when they decided to drive all the way to Texas to dump the body parts in a creek. How would Grant have known about the creek if it were not for Amanda. She is as guilty as Grant. Life without parole is to leanient.

More...