What the State’s Own Opening Statement Conceded

By Mrs. Eileen Hunter — about the author.

Before a single witness testified, the prosecutor told Tony Hunter’s jury — in the State’s own opening — that the truck “was processed but there was nothing that was found in the truck that linked Tony Hunter to the crime scene,” that the crime scene unit “did not recover any usable prints,” that there was no “physical evidence that would link the inside of 221 Greenwood to Tony Hunter,” and that with the gun, “they had no evidence that linked it to Tony Hunter as well.” The sheriff’s office, the State said, “had run up into a brick wall.” (State’s opening, R. 1623–1628, transcribed in the 2022 application.)

What bridged that gap, in the State’s telling, was character: Tony Hunter was “cold[,] calculating and to some extent… smart.” And then three incarcerated men took the stand. The court of appeal later confirmed what the opening had already conceded: their testimony was “the only evidence that directly linked Tony Hunter with the crime.”

The other half: an opening statement is not evidence, juries may convict on testimonial evidence alone, and this jury did. We quote the State’s framing because it is the cleanest statement in the record of what the case did — and did not — rest on.