Brett Seacat lawyer: Trial unfair without look at Vashti Seacat’s private side

A state court judge’s permitting testimony about Vashti Seacat’s “public face” while allowing jurors little to no look into her private side violated Brett Seacat’s rights to a fair murder trial, an appellate lawyer for the former lawman told the Kansas Supreme Court on Thursday.

Debra Wilson said prosecutors knew that her client’s defense at his first-degree murder trial in 2013 was to claim that his wife committed suicide, prompting them to secure nine witnesses to testify about her “sunny disposition, her optimism and her devotion to her children.”

But Brett Seacat was barred by the judge presiding over the case from telling jurors that his wife allegedly had tried to kill herself five times between the ages of 3 and 18 before her death – evidence Wilson says was vital to showing jurors all aspects of her character.

The testimony about alleged suicide attempts “was essential to Brett’s defense” because it established a pattern of self-harm, Wilson said, calling the exclusions an “abuse of discretion” by the judge.

“It is reasonable to believe that a person who has attempted suicide in the past may attempt suicide again,” Wilson told justices.

An attorney for the state countered that the alleged suicide attempts – if they occurred – were irrelevant and happened too long ago to paint a depiction of Vashti Seacat’s state of mind leading up to her death. The judge, he continued, was following previous high court decisions when he ruled Brett Seacat couldn’t testify about them.

“People get treatment. People get better. A lot of people who have attempted suicide go on to live a long life and die a natural death,” Deputy Solicitor General Kristafer Ailslieger said.

“What her state of mind was umpteen years earlier was not relevant at the time of her death.”

Wilson also contended the Kingman County District Court Judge Larry Solomon abused his discretion when he allowed people whom Vashti Seacat knew to tell jurors about threats she said her husband made on her life, because there was no evidence about when they occurred and she had motive to lie, Wilson said.

Ailslieger said the threats her friends testified about were made within six months of her death. He reiterated that the judge acted within his authority.

Attorneys brought their arguments before the Kansas Supreme Court on Thursday morning in Brett Seacat’s first appeal since a Kingman County jury convicted him of fatally shooting his 34-year-old wife on April 30, 2011, and setting fire to their home in an attempt to cover up the crime.

After hearing about three weeks’ worth of testimony and considering dozens of pieces of evidence, jurors took six hours to hand down a verdict that found Brett Seacat guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated arson and two counts of aggravated child endangerment on June 11, 2013.

He later was sentenced to 25 years to life, plus 75 months in prison.

In a 51-page written brief filed in his appeal in August 2014, Brett Seacat’s attorneys raised six issues they say prevented their client from getting a fair trial and asked that his convictions be overturned.

Attorneys for the state disregarded the arguments, saying the trial court judge properly applied the law and acted within his discretion. They want the court to uphold the convictions.

Brett Seacat, a former sheriff’s deputy and police instructor, has maintained his wife set her upstairs bedroom on fire while her two sons slept down the hall and shot herself in the head because she was depressed.

A coroner was unable to determine whether her death was a suicide or homicide because of fire damage to her body. Investigators found the gun lying beneath her on her bed.

The autopsy showed no signs of carbon monoxide or soot in Vashti Seacat’s lung, which suggested she was already dead when the fire started.

Oral arguments in Brett Seacat’s appeal started shortly before 11 a.m. Thursday. Each attorney was given up to 15 minutes to speak.

Another issue attorneys touched on Thursday was the trial judge’s ruling that a defense expert and a coroner weren’t qualified to testify that side effects of a weight-loss hormone Vashti Seacat took include depression and risk of suicide.

Wilson, Brett Seacat’s attorney, argued the coroner was “ready to say in court” that she used an authoritative physician’s handbook as part of her work and that qualified her to read from it in court about the hormone’s side effects.

Ailslieger, the state’s attorney, said Brett Seacat’s defense attorneys were using the coroner to try to “back-door testimony in” so they could submit it as an expert’s opinion at trial. To suggest the coroner would become an expert on a hormone by handing her the physician’s handbook, “I think is a bit of a stretch,” he said.

The Supreme Court will consider Thursday’s arguments and the briefs filed by the attorneys and issue a decision later. Court spokeswoman Lisa Taylor said the amount of time it takes to receive a ruling varies based on the number and complexity of issues raised in a case.

If the Supreme Court decides to overturn Seacat’s convictions, he could get a new trial. If this appeal and any future appeal are unsuccessful, he will stay in prison until at least 2044.

This story was originally published September 17, 2015 at 7:52 PM with the headline "Brett Seacat lawyer: Trial unfair without look at Vashti Seacat’s private side."