PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — On Friday, Day 25 of the Nancy Crampton Brophy trial, the defense rested its case after several witnesses gave their testimony.
Crampton Brophy is an Oregon romance novelist accused of murdering her husband, Daniel Brophy, a chef and instructor at the Oregon Culinary Institute, who was found dead inside the school on June 2, 2018.
On September 5, 2018, his wife, Crampton Brophy was arrested.
First on the stand: Alicia Hercher
The defense called on Hercher, an attorney, to reference a conversation she had last year with prosecuting attorney Shawn Overstreet regarding a previous client of Hercher named Catherine Wells. Hercher remembers the conversation with Overstreet in the hallway despite him saying the initial conversation happened over the phone.
While talking to Overstreet, Hercher doesn’t remember who exactly brought up Crampton Brophy. However, she said he told her to contact him if Wells said Crampton Brophy admitted to anything.
She then contacted her client two weeks later, which is when Wells became irate with the idea of speaking with Overstreet. She explained it was her duty as an attorney to present her client with all of the options available to her.
When asked if she knew someone by the name of Anndrea Jacobs, Hercher told the defense she did not.
Jacobs previously testified in court that she was in the same dorm at the Multnomah County Jail with Crampton Brophy. When asked about her time in jail, Jacobs said she was housed with Crampton Brophy the entire time she was incarcerated. Jacobs told the court she became friends with Crampton Brophy and had her bed close to her.
At one point, she admitted to sharing a nearby bed out of choice with Crampton Brophy. Other details included the two talking daily about food, wine and travel. Jacobs said she did not talk about her criminal cases with Crampton Brophy but said Crampton Brophy mentioned hers.
Second on the stand: Donna Maddux
Maddux, who is a partner at a law firm specializing in privacy and cybersecurity, was called by the defense. She previously worked U.S. Attorney’s Office where she was a federal prosecutor in the fraud unit for eight years.
During her testimony, Maddux told the court she knew Jacobs because she was assigned to investigate allegations of criminal conduct related to claims of embezzlement regarding Jacobs. She added this resulted in a bank fraud conviction against Jacobs.
When referencing Jacobs’ plea agreement, she said Jacobs was released on federal supervision at one point.
The court noted Maddux could only testify to what’s on public record regarding Jacobs. She received permission from the U.S. Department of Justice to do so.
“I had found [Jacobs] — based on this record and my experience with her – to be consistently untruthful,” said Maddux.
Third on the stand: Michael Howard
Howard is a forensic scientist who testified virtually when called by the defense. He worked for the Oregon State Police from 1975 to 1999.
He now owns his own consulting business dealing with forensics, blood splatter, among other services.
Howard admitted he was being retained by the defense for his testimony. While working for OSP, Howard said he did work on bullet trajectory and worked on this case by analyzing distance between victim and shooter along with an analysis of Daniel Brophy’s t-shirt.
He said the analysis of the t-shirt did not tell him the distance.
The judge then reminded the defense that Howard can only be asked time frames of consultation related to distance.
Fourth on stand: David Jeffers
Jeffers described himself as a lawyer of 11 years currently serving as a public defender for Marion County, more specifically as deputy director. He splits his him between prosecuting various cases to supervising attorneys and helping them continue their education.
During his testimony, he was given hypothetical questions about potential counts someone would receive for Medicare fraud. Jeffers told the court there was discretion for the prosecutor and depended on the defendant and their past crimes.
Cooperation agreement hypotheticals were also brought up by the defense for Jeffers to weigh in on.
The prosecution also had the chance to cross-examine the witness.
Overstreet asked Jeffers more questions on his experience with cooperation agreements and if he knew Jacobs. Jeffers said he only knows of her but not in a personal way.
Once the prosecution rested, there was no re-direct from the defense. The judge said he would not allow Jeffers’ testimony for this case.
Fifth on stand: Robert McCarthy
McCarthy is a neurologist in Eastern Oregon who was called by the defense to talk about Jacobs, who was an employee of his at an independent private practice he once owned. Jacobs worked for McCarthy for 15 or 20 years prior to 2015.
He told the court that Jacobs had a role in the failure of his practice, which had a role in Jacobs’ prosecution of a federal case. She was later convicted.
At the end of his testimony, McCarthy described Jacobs as “extraordinarily untruthful.”
Sixth on stand: Rhonda Slavic
The defense called Rhona Slavic once again to testify. When Slavic lived in Portland, she remembers meeting Jacobs, who was in business with her brother.
Slavic added that Jacobs would sometimes visit and “stay over” in the apartment she had with her brother. However, she did note that Jacobs would only “stay over” when Slavic was out of town.
From 2008 to 2012, Slavic said she saw Jacobs regularly, including Jacobs spending holidays with her family in Northern California.
“(Jacobs) is not capable of telling the truth,” she said.
The prosecution chose to not cross-examine the witness.
Seventh on the stand: Curtis Haynie
Haynie is currently a dentist in Hood River, which is where he met Jacobs. He told the defense he had a complicated billing system due to the work his practice does.
In spring of 2019, he said Jacobs walked into his practice, mentioned one of his mentors and offered to help with his medical billing issues. Haynie said he was not asking for help at the time and didn’t hire her that moment.
Jacobs then went back to the practice months later stating medical billing solutions to Haynie. He said he was surprised to see her once again but eventually hired her.
When the coronavirus pandemic hit, Haynie said he spent more one-on-one time with Jacobs. Haynie said he later confronted Jacobs of wrongdoing at the practice, so she left on May 12, 2020.
In his testimony, Haynie told the court he later worked with law enforcement in a federal case where he was a victim of.
“She’s a compulsive liar,” he said.
The prosecution did not cross-examine Haynie.
The defense then rested its case other than discussing exhibits with the judge and prosecution.
On Monday, May 23, jury can expect closing arguments by both sides along with receiving instructions from the court.