Murdering Molester or Killer Kids?

Sept. 6, 2002 -- In theory, Florida prosecutors believe convicted child molester Ricky Chavis and two baby-faced brothers are both innocent and guilty of the same murder.

Chavis and brothers Alex and Derek King have been tried separately for the November 2001 bludgeoning death of the boys' father Terry King. Last week, with testimony and statements from the young brothers, Florida prosecutors asked a jury to believe Chavis himself killed King; this week they asked a separate jury which began deliberations Thursday, to believe the King brothers were responsible for their father's murder.

Florida prosecutors had two clashing theories in the death but did not choose between the two. Instead, they presented both in two trials. Both theories were fueled by statements given by Derek and Alex, who were 13 and 12 at the time of the slaying but were tried as adults.

A Tale of Two Statements

Alex and Derek initially confessed their involvement in the killing to police. Both confessed that they killed their father because they feared he would punish them for running away. Derek, then 13, said his younger brother Alex, then 12, hatched the murder plan and Derek carried it out, repeatedly striking his father with a baseball bat. They both then set their home on fire to cover up the killing, according to the confessions.

Later, the boys recanted, and said former family friend Chavis was the real killer. In the revised statements, the brothers said they were not involved in killing, that they let Chavis into their home after midnight and that he struck the fatal blows as they hid in his car trunk.

Chavis, they said, encouraged them to confess to the murder and cover-up for him. He allegedly told them that they could claim self-defense, since they believed their father was strict and domineering, that they would get less jail time because they are juveniles and ultimately, they would be allowed live with him. Alex, now 13, told police that he and the 40-year-old Chavis had been having sex and that they were in love.

Last week, during Chavis' trial, prosecutors seemingly believed the boys' revised story — and argued to a jury — that Chavis killed King to prevent him from learning about his affair with Alex and potentially pressing charges.

This week, the same prosecutors had to change their position as they put Alex and Derek on trial and asked a different jury to believe that the boys concocted and carried out their father's slaying. They asked a jury to discount the boys' accusations against Chavis, which they had championed only the week before.

Jurors in Chavis' trial reached a verdict and it will remain sealed until there is a decision in the King brothers' case.

Alleged ‘Hocus Pocus’ With the Jury

Experts say prosecutors should not have been allowed to present two theories that seem to clash with each other, and two guilty verdicts may not be upheld. Both the young brothers and Chavis can be convicted of first-degree murder. But under the prosecution's theories, all three cannot be guilty.

"I don't see how it [a conviction] could be upheld," said James Cohen, professor of law at Fordham University. "The state cannot say that the adult 'friend' acted alone and then say that the two brothers acted alone. The state has to pick a position; both cannot be true. The state cannot take both positions. In other words, it's fundamentally unfair."

A third theory that prosecutors have not argued — and which may be most sensible — is that all three were involved in a plot to kill Terry King. Instead, prosecutors chose to attempt to win two convictions with two opposed theories.

"That would make the most sense — that they were all in on it — but that wasn't argued and that's what makes this kind of fishy," said Jon'a Meyer, associate professor of law at Rutgers University at Camden, N.J. "And then they seal the verdict in the first trial so that jurors don't find out about the outcome. It just seems very iffy, like they're playing hocus pocus with the jury."

A Question of Legal Ethics

Prosecutors can present different theories for a murder, experts say, but they must be fundamentally consistent. Florida prosecutors cannot believe Chavis alone killed Terry King without discounting the boys' initial murder confession and believing the revised story. They then cannot turn around and say they believe the boys' murder confession and discount their second story about Chavis' involvement.

To accept both arguments means that all three defendants are both telling the truth and lying. However, prosecutors are asking the criminal justice system to accept both theories.

"The state cannot take position A and then turn around a say position B is true," said Cohen. "The state has an obligation to consistency. It would be most consistent to argue that all three were involved, but I haven't seen that in reports."

Still, some believe that if both Chavis and the young King brothers are found guilty of first-degree murder, their convictions can be upheld on appeal.

"If they argue that everything was handled according to proper procedure and that the defendants received a fair trial, it could be upheld," said Meyer. "Technically, it could be constitutional, but ethically it's not right. The prosecutor is falling short of his duties as a public official to filter through evidence and see what charges hold up and what do not."

Others believe that perhaps prosecutors should have put all three defendants on trial together and let a jury decide for itself who carried out the slaying.

"It's unethical for prosecutors to present two diametrically opposed theories in separate trials to attain a conviction in the same case," said Christopher Slobogin, professor at Florida State University College of Law. "Typically, the prosecutor may need to bite the bullet and figure out which of the defendants they should be pursuing for the crime. Or they could have tried them all at once and let a jury decide for itself. But trying all defendants at once is not necessarily good for defense attorneys because sometimes juries believe they're all guilty and convict all the defendants."

Problems With Statements and More Trouble Ahead

The main problem with the boys' stories is their credibility. Defense attorneys in Chavis' trial — and prosecutors in the King boys' case — both argued that they gave specific details about their father's death that they would only know if they witnessed the killing or did it themselves. They also allegedly confessed to the murder and its plot to other people — their biological mother and foster parents. In addition, paint thinner — which could have been used to set their house on fire — was found in the boys' sneakers.

Chavis chose not to testify at Alex and Derek King's trial, invoking his constitutional right to not incriminate himself. Regardless of the outcome in his murder case, Chavis still faces trial next month for lewd and lascivious acts for his alleged sexual affair with Alex. He also faces charges for accessory after the fact and tampering with or fabricating evidence for allegedly hiding the boys after the killing and destroying evidence in the case. Reportedly, those charges may be dropped, depending on the outcome of the murder trials. The King brothers also face arson charges.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Chavis and Derek and Alex King face mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole.