JUROR # 5

THE WANDA JEAN ALLEN MURDER

TRIAL
MY EXPERIENCE AS A FIRST TIME JUROR
PREFACE
Law without justice is a wound without a cure. – William Scott Downey

Jury duty is mandatory for all U.S. citizens between 18 and 70

years of age and serves a vital role in the American system of
justice. The Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in
both criminal and civil cases . Failing to report for jury duty is
illegal and can result in penalties or prosecution. When you
serve on a jury, you're ensuring the defendant's Sixth
Amendment right to a speedy trial and an impartial jury.

If you are called for jury duty, you must appear before the court
or risk being held in contempt of court, unless you are exempt
or not eligible, as per the disqualifiers listed below:
• Being under 18 years old or not a citizen of the United States.
• Having a criminal history or certain mental or physical
impairments.
• Being unable to read, write, and understand English
proficiently.

1
 • Being a member of the armed forces, a professional firefighter
or police officer, or a public officer of federal, state, or local
governments.
• Being a full-time student or a primary caregiver.

Jury duty applies to both civil and criminal cases. In a criminal

case, the government, which is responsible for bringing the
case against the defendant, must prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. The jury then must make a unanimous
decision. In a civil case, the standard of proof is a
preponderance of the evidence, and the jury must be
unanimous unless instructed otherwise.
The concept of trial by jury is said to have been developed in the
11th century, when King Henry II of England discovered that he
needed his barons to help him with his legal matters. He and his
barons would meet in a form of court called the Curia Regis. During
the Curia Regis, the barons were responsible for resolving disputes
between the king and the people, as well as determining guilt or
innocence in criminal cases. These barons, rather than the king,
were the ones who decided the verdict of these cases. The Curia
Regis eventually evolved into what became known as a jury of
presentment. This was a panel of 12 people who were chosen from
the local community and tasked with presenting evidence to the
court. This was the first instance of a jury trial in England, and it
was the beginning of a centuries-long journey for the concept of
jury trials .

2
The right to trial by jury was an important part of the foundation of
the United States. The Founding Fathers viewed it as a fundamental
right, and it was enshrined in the Constitution in 1791. The 6th
Amendment to the Constitution states that “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury.” The right to trial by jury was
further strengthened in 1868, with the passage of the 14th
amendment to the Constitution. This amendment established the
right of all citizens to trial by jury regardless of race, sex, or
religion. It also gave the Supreme Court the power to determine
the constitutionality of criminal trials. Amendment to the
Constitution. This amendment established the right of all citizens to
trial by jury regardless of race, sex, or religion. It also gave the
Supreme Court the power to determine the constitutionality of
criminal trials.

3
CHAPTER 1

When I was summoned for jury duty for the first time, I
assumed it would be a relatively short-lived experience and
would be over soon, with little to remember except I had
performed my civic duty. One day, maybe two and I would be
done. Everyone I had ever known that had ever performed jury
duty had reasonably run-of-the-mill experiences and I never
remember anyone recounting anything that was spectacular or
super serious, in nature.
Instead, what transpired for me during a roughly two-week
period in 1989 completely transformed my personal view and
mindset regarding the inner workings of our legal system, and I
now have a much greater respect for the way our system of
justice works. For whatever reason, this experience for me was
incredibly taxing, emotionally, and it tested my mental
capacities and fortitude as much as any experience I have lived
through, to date. I took this duty very seriously.
Over time I have read about and have been made aware of a
few of what I would deem misconceptions or
misrepresentations regarding some of the facts surrounding the
case and exactly what went on inside the jury room of the
Wanda Jean Allen murder trial. As someone who was there, I
would like a chance to shed some insight as to the actual
decision process, how it was made, and why the ultimate
verdict and sentence were agreed upon, unanimously by twelve
4
jurors who were all present, witnessed, and discussed the
evidence and heard the testimonies that were presented at the
trial.
I also did not realize until later what a high-profile case this was
at the time, and how prolifically it was portrayed in the local
media, during daily newscasts. This case was ultimately
featured in an HBO documentary titled “The Execution of
Wanda Jean.”
It was the summer of 1989, and after the struggles of the
previous dozen years, I was finally able to be somewhat
forward looking as to overcoming or completing the lingering
obstacles or multitude of bucket list items in my life, as we
surely all have dreams of doing at some point during our
journey, I would imagine.
I was now married, had finally overcome 9 or 10 years of the
deteriorating effects of Crohn’s disease, (which unfortunately
for me, went mis-diagnosed until I located a Great doctor, Dr.
Malcolm Robinson-now deceased). I had finally landed my
dream job with General Mills, including all the perks that I
believe I had worked so hard for, like a furnished company
vehicle, expense account and a company credit card. It seemed
as if life was finally beginning to become more than just livable
again, instead of being quietly stolen away from me, while still
in my mid-forties.
Perhaps then, it is sometimes not by choice that life altering,
perhaps even life changing events occur in our lives and Crohn’s
5
was the first such event for me. I suppose these events can take
many forms, whether they transpire as positive, negative, or
they are dramatically introduced, our lives can be changed
forever by events we endure, even if totally not by choice.
For some, an example of a life altering event might be winning
the lottery, for others losing a job, or losing a family member in
a car accident. I have a friend who is a highly decorated retired
Navy and former Blue Angel pilot named Doug M. who flew
over 500 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’m pretty sure
he had many life-forming/changing, or even life altering type
events occur during his brave service to our country.
Before he became a great pilot, (a True War Hero in my eyes),
Doug M., (back in the day -- 70’s/80’s), who was then my
church member friend and softball teammate, also once struck
out ‘twice’ in a church league slow pitch softball game. That
was probably just a character-building event, though, as we all
experience sometimes. He was then and will always remain as
someone to look up to, in my eyes.
Anyone who can take off from and land a fully armed and
fueled jet fighter aircraft over 1,000 times from the short
pitching deck of an aircraft carrier, often in the middle of the
night, has earned way more than my ‘simpleton’ nod of respect
and approval. Thank you, Doug (call sign---Hound Dog)!

6
CHAPTER 2

It was sometime during the late spring or early summer of 1989

that I returned home from a normal day at work to find an
official notice to report for jury duty in my mailbox.
Instructions were to report for jury duty in just a few weeks. I
had never served on a jury before but knew it was my civic duty
once chosen to serve, when selected to participate; (this was
pre-internet and jurors were randomly chosen by driver license,
at that time). In any event, it was now time for me to do my
civic duty and I remember being somewhat nervous, yet excited
that I had been selected for jury duty.
Upon entering the District Court building in downtown
Oklahoma City, for the first time ever, I was directed to the jury
assembly room where jurors were to report, having no clue
what I was about to witness, let alone potentially become a civil
participant in. With a brisk walk of about ¼ mile to get from
where I was able to park to the courthouse, one could easily
sense that it was going to be a warm and very humid Oklahoma
day, and I was hopeful the A/C was working smoothly, as I had
no experience in what would be next, for how many days, or
how long each day would be.
After opening the door, even I, (with zero previous experience
or exposure inside a courthouse), immediately realized this
wasn’t going to be your basic simple trial (not that there is a

7
simple trial if you are one of the participants), as there were
well over a hundred people all seated in what appeared to be a
fair size auditorium type room, which was filled with the buzz
of soft whispering murmurs, most likely everyone speculating
about what kind of trial it would be. I remember thinking to
myself that I don’t even think I ever knew anyone that had ever
been arrested before, so this was all completely new to me.
Then a person appeared at the front of the room and began
giving us the details regarding the type of trial it was (a Murder
Trial), what we would soon be undergoing, and the procedures
we would need to follow, if and when our name was selected
and called. At that point I remember thinking fat chance I
would be picked, as there were so many folks to choose from.
I spent the first day and a half of the jury selection process
getting to know a guy named Ron L. Just so happens his brother
Dino L. is an OKC TV personality for the local NBC affiliate and is
featured on a weekly TV show that airs in Oklahoma City on
Saturday evenings, called ‘Discover Oklahoma.’
Ron was very entertaining (under the circumstances) and was
quick to (quietly) quip about one of the first jury members to be
seated, who by the way, actually brought along with him, and
was reading a copy of “Guns and Ammo” magazine as he was
waiting for the remainder of the jury to be seated, (or himself
to be supplanted by another potential juror, we humorously
supposed).

8
Just the visual of the guy casually sitting there while reading
that magazine, as a seated jury member at a murder trial, was
something you might see on a Saturday Night Live skit, but
surely not in a real-life Oklahoma court room. Just as we were
both quelling the inner laughter from that almost surreal
experience, the jury interview room door then opened and just
like that, the guy was soon replaced by another member from
the jury pool.
We wondered if he had really wanted to be there or had
cunningly planned his exit strategy ahead of time by bringing
(and displaying) that particular magazine publication, as reading
material. Either way, the original candidate for juror number
one was history.
After imagining to myself how that guy was probably on his way
home for the day, it was then that we were also made aware
that even if we weren’t picked to become part of this jury, we
didn’t get to just go home. If not picked for this immediate jury,
there were other trials also needing juries/jurors, and we would
simply be assigned to a new jury pool, as needed.
On day two or three of the jury voir dire (interview) process,
that all changed. My name was called, I uttered a quick
goodbye to Ron L. and that was the last time I ever saw or
spoke to my new acquaintance.
The process of voir dire, (a preliminary examination of a
witness or a juror by a judge or counsel) was a term and
process I had never heard of before and I supposed because
9
this was a murder trial with a packed courtroom, perhaps that
was the reason the voir dire interviews were held outside of the
courtroom.
When I was escorted to the room where the interviews were
taking place, there seated was the judge, defendant, and
counsel for both sides, in addition to the court reporter.
Entering that room, a feeling came over me that this was about
to get very real, very soon.
I remember being seated about 8-10 feet almost directly across
from the defendant (Wanda Jean Allen), and how direct the
questioning from the judge to me was regarding the fact that
this would be a trial potentially involving the death penalty. I
also remember being asked by the judge directly if I would have
any issue with coming to a guilty verdict if the evidence was
sufficient as well as, did I have an issue with Oklahoma’s death
penalty law.
At this point it almost felt like I was the one on trial, since it
seemed I was being so thoroughly questioned by the judge and
both attorneys, and all eyes were staring straight at me and
only me. This judicial process was beginning to weigh heavily on
me for the first time, as my first jury experience was inching
along, seemingly at a snail’s pace. I answered each question
concisely and honestly and for whatever reason, I was
eventually and permanently seated as juror number 5.

10
CHAPTER 3

Over the next day or two, the jury pool was filled and made
complete, including alternates and I recall there were several
potential jurors that ended up being replaced (I assumed by)
candidates that seemed more suitable to one side or the other,
as one of the wonderful things our justice system provides for is
that both the Defense team and Prosecution team each have a
specified number of jurors they can replace, (without cause,
which really means ‘just because’). I believe in this case the
number that could be replaced by either side was 8. So, this is
how juries are formed, I thought to myself.
How refreshing it is that the American justice system is set up
to be as fair to both sides as possible. This may be the point
where I began to get interested in the way our criminal court
system and the law surrounding it works, and I also then
realized why the jury pool was so large (well over 100 people),
for this type of trial.
For claustrophobic reasons, I have always had a personal
preference to be seated on the end of a row, whether at
church, a concert, sporting event, movie theater, or whatever,
and remember thinking I had wished, (selfishly at the time),
that I had been seated just one more juror to the right and I
would then be on the end, but it wasn’t to be and that was
that. You are listed by number according to where you are
placed and there is an exact order and reason for every detail
11
within the courtroom. I admired the precision, order,
preparedness, and overall professionalism that the judge and
both sides offered throughout the trial.
With this defendant being a black person, and having had so
many potential jurors to choose from, I also found it interesting
that our jury was ultimately comprised of only one black
person—his name was Keith, he was a super nice guy and we
ended up being roommates the one night we were sequestered
to stay at a local motel overnight, but with no conversation to
occur between jurors or anyone regarding the case, until the
next day’s court session. He too, thought it was odd that he was
the only black juror.
With that, we were into the first day of the actual trial, where
an array of witnesses, including police officers testified and the
video of the arrest interview was played for the jury to see and
hear, which to me was very interesting, within itself.
As she was being interviewed, Wanda Jean was obviously
extremely nervous and spent much of the time with nervous
scratching of her arms and upper torso, so much so, at times it
almost seemed as if she were suffering from Tourette’s
syndrome, as the motions were so extreme and were replete
with sudden, almost uninterrupted jerking movements.
On December 2, 1988, Wanda Jean Allen was accused of
shooting her lover, Gloria Jean Leathers (they met in prison),
after a heated argument led to the police escorting Leathers
along with her mother back to the residence she shared with
12
Allen, to be able to gather her belongings and leave the
residence, permanently. Later that day, Leathers and her
mother drove to the Village police department in Oklahoma
City to file a complaint against Allen and attempt to get a
restraining order. Allen was waiting in the parking lot and shot
Leathers while she was still seated in her car. Allen was able to
drive away from the scene and was apprehended five days later
in a town 75 miles away from Oklahoma City. Gloria Leathers
died on December 5, 1988, from her gunshot injuries.
Overall, it appeared to me the Defense utilized a strategy of
picturing Wanda Jean as a victim of her circumstances, (which
to a large degree of course she was), but there just wasn’t
much else to offer to the jury or base their case on that would
exonerate her or mitigate her situation, I suppose, as once she
was apprehended, she admitted to shooting Gloria Jean
Leathers and perhaps the dye was then cast for the eventual
outcome.
There was some weak circumstantial evidence offered up by
the defense about the altercation leading up to the breakup
and how it was in some way first initiated by Leathers, as a
supposed garden hand rake that was used against Allen by
Leathers in an assault was never corroborated and the alleged
‘rake’ was never produced as evidence. There was also no
evidence introduced of any cuts or bruises on Allen from said
altercation.

13
The Prosecution on the other hand characterized Wanda Jean
as cold hearted and (obviously) portrayed the victim (Gloria
Leathers), as the one who did everything right by having her
Mother escort her to the police station to file a complaint and
get an order of protection, when she was hunted down and
shot in broad daylight, by the defendant in the parking lot of a
metro OKC police station.
In terms of the two arguments (Prosecution vs Defense), it was
really no contest and the Prosecution led pretty much from
start to finish (in my opinion), without seemingly much the
defense could do about it—It seemed akin to an OU Football
game at the time, whereby the game was usually decided by or
before halftime and with OU winning by half a hundred.
However, our job as jurors was far from over, and in fact had
barely begun.

14
CHAPTER 4

There was a lot of jury instruction from the judge throughout

the two-week trial, as occasional and various objections,
statements, and comments made by both sides were not to be
considered and thereby stricken from our thought process. This
was confusing for me at first, as I was used to then and still
today, taking notes which was not allowed in the courtroom. I
wished then and still believe now that at least one or possibly
two jurors should be allowed to take notes to assist in
deliberations—just my two cents. I suppose that is another
reason to have 12 jurors.
During the jury deliberation process and since most of us had
never served on a jury before, it was at first a feeling out
process as a jury foreman had to be chosen, and none of us
knew each other prior to this chance encounter. Fairly soon, a
foreman was chosen and agreed upon and the case was now in
our hands to take as long as needed to deliberate and we were
also instructed that we could ask questions of the judge by way
of written note, only if needed. Otherwise, we were instructed
to ‘figure it out’ based on evidence and testimony.
I was ready to get the process going as we had spent almost 2
weeks being seated, hearing testimony, viewing evidence as
well as undergoing intense jury instruction by the judge. Each
day was a new learning experience for me as a first-time juror
and I was somewhat anxious to finally hear what my fellow
15
jurors had to say about the case we were presented to discuss
and deliberate.
During our deliberations, I remember there were a couple of
questions we had for the judge, and as I recall at least one of
the questions was over technical or procedural matters, but the
one I remember most was asking to see/view the actual murder
weapon, (which was approved by the judge). As a gun owner, I
recognized the weapon as a basic black .38 caliber snub nose
revolver, and it was left in the jury room for us to see, touch, or
even handle, if desired.
Next, the business at hand was to discuss the case and address
the formal charges that were to be considered, which was over
the first-degree murder charge. I remember later wondering
why there wasn’t a separate charge for possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon (which will be alluded to later), but it
would have ultimately been a moot point, I suppose.
We were first to consider the matter of a guilty or innocent
verdict, which took a reasonably small amount of time to
consider and was a unanimous (show of hands) guilty verdict.
There was no individual tally needed—everyone raised their
hand as to guilty, and it was so recorded by the foreman.
The defendant had admitted to pulling the trigger, had
possession of the weapon, the motive, (and had just been
“broken up with” by the victim a few hours earlier); she also
correctly assumed that Gloria Leathers was headed to the
police station next and it was proved beyond a reasonable
16
doubt that she intended to either put a stop to it or to stop
Leathers from entering the police precinct building, in the first
place. Not to mention there was also a witness to the murder
(Gloria Leather’s mother).
There was also one piece of supporting evidence presented by
the prosecution which was a postcard sent by Wanda Jean
Allen to Gloria Leathers (at some prior point during the
relationship), picturing a very large gorilla in an aggressive
posture and the wording Wanda Jean had personally inscribed
inside was something to the effect of “I feel like killing
something today—Dig?” The postcard was very revealing and
was utilized well by the prosecution at the trial.
There has also been some misinformation about where Gloria
Leathers was positioned or located at the time she was shot—
the shot was fired from nearly point-blank range, by leaning
into the driver’s window towards the passenger side, not
outside the vehicle, or while running away. Only Wanda Jean
Allen was outside the vehicle, as she fired the shot. The bullet
went through Leather’s abdomen, exiting out her backside. Her
intestinal tract was grotesquely laying partially on the front
seat, where it had been forced out through the exit wound in
her back. Leather’s mother was also in the car at the time.
Now it was day 12 or 13 of this exhausting trial and we were
finally at the point where the verdict was to be read aloud in
front of the packed courtroom, as there was not a single empty
seat to be had. You could sense a distinct air of tension within
17
the courtroom, surrounded by the complete, palpable silence
of the packed crowd that was present.
This is when I also noticed there was a camera outside the
courtroom, but viewable through a narrow vertical window on
the door and which appeared to be pointed towards the jury
box. I later discovered the camera was filming for what would
become an HBO documentary titled “The Execution of Wanda
Jean,” which I have since watched a couple of times, and it
created for me, what in large part has spurred the need and
desire for this perspective narrative to be memorialized.
When the guilty verdict was announced in court, I believe there
was a reasonably loud whimper from a female family member,
but otherwise judging by the lack of noise from an audience of
well over 100 including, the press, it didn’t seem like the guilty
verdict was a huge surprise, to say the least.

18
CHAPTER 5

Next, we were to consider the penalty/sentencing phase of the

trial, and this is where things got more intense within the jury
room. As someone who had zero experience regarding the legal
system, now I and eleven other people were tasked with
determining the legal fate of another human being. At this
point, I remember my mind being filled with so many emotions,
but I was determined to be objective, fair and was prepared (as
best one can be) to do my part in making this decision, along
with my fellow jurors.
We were given three options to choose from:
1. Life in prison with possibility of parole.
2. Life in prison without possibility of parole.
3. The death penalty.
The jury foreman as I recall, did an excellent job in leading the
jury discussions and it was decided we would vote on the lesser
sentence first and escalate the vote from there, voting at each
level of sentencing, until we fail to reach a verdict, then we
would vote to accept the last unanimous vote, if need be. The
first vote was 12-0 for Life with possibility of parole and was
accomplished reasonably swiftly, after the trial details were
discussed with a great amount of detail and input offered by
most of the jurors. This was the simplest, quickest vote taken
during the trial, but accomplished with hours of discussion.
19
We next voted on Life without possibility of parole sentence,
and it was also a 12-0 vote, with some discussion. This was also
a relatively quick vote, in terms of time. From that point and
before taking a third vote, we had a Lot of debate about the
term “premeditation” and at what point did the defendant
‘know’ she was going to pull the trigger—that vote was 10-2,
after hours of some very vigorous discussion.
More debate (sometimes even a bit agitated) ensued and since
we were near the end of the day—the judge ordered us
sequestered to a local motel, where we were to be housed for
the night, two to a room, and were supremely admonished not
to discuss anything trial related to anyone or amongst each
other.
Keith (the only black juror) was my roommate and I got to know
him a bit. Neither of us had ever experienced a being on a jury
before, let alone on a trial of this magnitude. In any event, after
a spartan breakfast, we arrived back in the courtroom the next
morning to continue our deliberations on the penalty phase of
the trial.
During the next day after again, a seemingly endless but
spirited debate lasting into the afternoon between a few jurors,
(myself now included), we decided to take another vote for the
death penalty—this time it was 11-1, with the one holdout
whom I remember happened to be a librarian at a library near
where I live, who seemingly and innocently enough, could not
rightfully establish in her mind how this act was premeditated.
20
So, the issue of premeditation, even with judge’s instruction
and definition, was the single issue keeping us from being a
unanimous jury. Remembering the judge’s admonition and
instructions to take our time but be vigilant on determining a
just and proper sentence, according to the evidence and
testimonies we were presented and as the law dictates, we
tirelessly carried on.
The foreman, a few others and the lone holdout held multiple
and relatively boisterous back-and-forth’s about the judge’s
definition of premeditation (which I now know can occur in the
mind within an instant), yet the librarian was standing firm. I
admired, but also felt for the lone lady holdout as it almost
seemed like she ‘could have’ felt like she was being bullied.
After a considerable amount of time of complete silence within
the jury room, that at the time seemed to be beginning to get
more than just strangely awkward, it occurred to me to use the
murder weapon as a visual—so, with the foreman and the
others’ permission, I picked up the .38 revolver from the table it
was sitting on (the gun was not loaded, obviously). It was at this
point during the discussion I wanted to attempt to draw a visual
differentiation about premeditation in her mind, if possible.
I pointed the weapon and with both hands, aiming it down a
hallway (away from anyone but acting like I was firing at the
victim) and asked the librarian if in her opinion “Is this
Premeditation?” She agreed and replied, yes.

21
Since in testimony it was proven Wanda Jean Allen actually did
fire the weapon from underneath her sweatshirt and not with
an extended arm, thereby semi-eluding visual detection, I took
the firearm and acted as if I had put it under my shirt, then
asked her again—Why is this not premeditation, what’s the
difference, to which she finally agreed, eventually replied yes
on the next vote and we at last had a unanimous decision.
The trial had worn heavily on all of us, and we were all very
tired, but I truly believe every juror was fully invested in the
process at the time. This was not an easy decision, and the
process of deliberations was extremely intense and grueling, to
say the least. However, a human life was in the balance of our
decision, and that was not to be taken in any way lightly, by any
of us.

22
CONCLUSION

This was 1989 and Oklahoma was a leading state in terms of

three strikes and you’re out sentencing guidelines for people
who are found guilty of violent crimes after having already
committed and been convicted for prior crimes. Legislators or
office seekers ran their campaigns in large part on the
platforms of law and order and maximum sentences for
criminals and this was certainly welcomed by a vast majority of
voters in this very conservative (Red) state, at the time.
We jurors later found out the lady judge in this case had never
presided over a murder trial before, so it would seem it was
also this judge’s first job related ‘life altering’ experience, in a
way.

Wanda Jean Allen was born on August 17, 1959, the second of
eight children. Her mother was an alcoholic; her father left
home after Wanda's last sibling was born and the family lived
in public housing and scraped by on public assistance.
At the age of 12, Allen was hit by a delivery truck and was
knocked unconscious, and at 14 or 15 she was stabbed in the

23
left temple. It was found that Allen's cognitive abilities were
markedly impaired and that her IQ was 69.
Found of particular significance was that the left hemisphere of
her brain was dysfunctional, impairing her comprehension, her
ability to logically express herself, and her ability to
analyze cause and effect relationships. It was also concluded
that Allen was more chronically vulnerable than others to
becoming disorganized by everyday stresses, and thus more
vulnerable to a loss of control under stress.
By age 17, she had dropped out of high school.
Wanda Jean Allen was born on August 17, 1959, and died on
January 11, 2001, at 41 years of age (15,123 days). What
happened in between those dates and during her time on earth
was obviously underscored by a tumultuous life that began
with a childhood and subsequent upbringing that was less than
desirable, by most any standards.
Squalid living conditions, poor diet, physical traumatic events as
an adolescent, and lack of quality parental involvement or
supervision, placed her in an eventual situation whereby, she
simply succumbed to her environment—succumbed in a way
that a normal person would likely not fail. She admittedly was
not normal in the sense that she (twice) severely overreacted
to stressful situations in extreme and violent ways, that not
only ended two people’s lives, but was undoubtedly
accomplished without what would be considered normal
reasoning. I can only imagine the “battle” that must have
24
occurred within her mind during much of her lifetime. A classic
battle between Good and Evil, I would surmise.
Prior to this offense, Wanda Jean Allen had been convicted in
1981 for the murder of Diedre Pettis, who was also an alleged
former lover. Allen at the time garnered what would by today’s
standards to be considered a “light” sentence of only 4 years,
after pistol whipping Pettis down a stairwell and shooting her
“point blank,” at the bottom of the landing, as was reported.
She was the first female executed in Oklahoma since 1954 (4th
overall), and she was only the 6th female executed in the United
States since the death penalty was reinstated in 1974.
We, the jury in this case were instructed thoroughly that her
prior offense was Not to be considered at the time we were
deciding Guilty vs Not Guilty, as that sentence had been served
and obviously considering someone as being guilty and giving
consideration of a prior offense and conviction would be
considered “double jeopardy,” and is not allowable under U.S.
law.
There has since been some debate as to whether the jury
would have reached a lesser sentence if information regarding
her mental state or IQ could have been mitigating factors in
determining her sentence, but that was not part of what the
jury was instructed to consider. We were made aware that her
IQ was registered at 69 (which could be considered borderline
mildly mentally disabled), but in my opinion, the evidence
showed her obvious ability to interact with and around others
25
and her IQ did not seem to lend itself to her being mentally
disabled enough to be a danger to herself or others, on the
surface.
I’m not aware of anyone who can actually read minds or who
can accurately forecast exactly when or even if a person will
react with extreme unreasonableness or violence. If there were
a way to do that, I suppose that person would win the Nobel
Peace Prize and our crime rate would plummet.
It could also be argued from the Leather’s family perspective
that Wanda Jean Allen had plenty of capacity, cunning,
capability, desire, and certainly enough available and
functioning IQ to end their loved one’s life, unnecessarily, and
should receive the maximum sentence available under the law,
which is what was considered.
There is now a debate going on within the Oklahoma legislature
as to whether to abolish the death penalty and instead, future
such sentences would become a maximum of Life without
parole, as only 24 states have a death penalty option, as of
today.
I have been asked a few times since the trial ended and having
had now decades to ponder, would I still vote the same way
today, and especially knowing more about the trauma Wanda
Jean Allen suffered as a child, and her IQ status of appx. 69.
I believe that every person has been granted the opportunity to
utilize their free agency each and every single day, whether we

26
choose to try to rob a bank, murder someone, do a good deed,
set a world record, or just behave normally, that is entirely up
to us as individuals, on any given day and at any given time. But
there are consequences for our actions if we behave in a
manner that falls outside the boundaries of law and order, or
even reason and common sense.
I believe now as I believed back then that Wanda Jean Allen had
her free agency available to her to act in any way she chose,
until it became criminal, immoral, and illegal. Under Oklahoma
law, the prosecution met their burden of proof, and guilt was
proven, well beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore the
consequences of her actions were met with the maximum
sentence available.
Prior to our initial deliberations, the judge was very, very
specific in pointing out that we jurors were NOT to consider her
previous murder conviction, however, she said nothing about
consideration of the fact that she was indeed carrying a loaded
firearm in the commission of a second heinous offense and that
was part of what I personally used as reasoning to convict of
the higher sentence.
When she was in possession of a firearm (after a felony
conviction), that alone was a major offense and since she chose
to make such a choice, twice, (in my opinion), which ultimately
led to her own demise and under current Oklahoma law, I
believed then and still today that the penalty fit the crime. I
would not have voted differently today.
27
Voting for a lesser sentence simply because the defendant had
a less than pleasant childhood and wasn’t a Rhodes’ scholar
would be without full consideration for the victim’s families’
rights, or for justice in general terms. She met the threshold in
terms of the law as it is currently written.
She was still able to function as a relatively normal member of
society until she decided to ‘place herself’ in situations where
she was no longer in control of not only her situation, but for
those who chose to exit her life and for whom she undoubtedly
did not wish to allow to occur.
Whether the death penalty is warranted or should be outlawed
to me is a valid question. However, for now and at the time,
jurors are instructed to vote according to the dictates of the
case and the law as it exists, not as we individually believe it
should be. From that standpoint, I believe the system worked
as intended, and we did our job, as we were duly appointed to
do.
I am still amazed today that Wanda Jean Allen was able to
simply drive away, unabated, from the Village Police Dept.’s
parking lot after discharging her weapon, with no one
hearing, seeing, or being nearby enough to witness the event
at that particular moment in time, except Gloria Leather’s
mother.
Assuming that each juror was honest during their voir dire
examination interview, then there should be no surprise that
the death penalty verdict was reached, as each juror was asked
28
‘ahead of time’, whether they would vote to convict with the
death penalty IF the facts and evidence provided proved the
defendant to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Looking back these years later and after reading many
comments made by those that were not present at the trial, I
believe you cannot have it both ways—live a relatively normal
life for years and then when you make a major mistake in
judgment because of a jealous rage, blame it on mental illness,
inevitably to elude or deflect ultimate responsibility.
In the end, we all have our own individual free agency to make
decisions that govern our lives.
Life itself may indeed be the one and only absolute zero-sum
game or experience, especially when you choose to end
another’s.
If, at some point we become a society that requires the need to
set aside funding to allow for a percent of the mentally
challenged population to have to be taken care of, because
they can no longer be responsible for themselves, then that is
all for a different discussion than the one the jurors in this case
were a part of.
Whether or not the death penalty is supposed to be any kind of
a deterrent to committing extremely violent crimes may be up
for future debate.
If you use your ‘free agency’ as a human being to take and
destroy an innocent life, then you ultimately have placed
29
yourself in the position, without assistance from anyone else,
to have your fate determined, according to the law. I choose to
believe that I properly performed my duties as a juror, within
the constraints of the law, as did the other eleven jurors.
As irony would have it, once the trial was over and I was leaving
the courthouse building to head to my home, I slowed to open
the door of the building for a lady who was trailing just behind
me. As soon as I opened the door for us and let her go ahead of
me, I realized the person to be the defendant’s Mother—(I
believe she may have been the lone person who let out a
whimper at the reading of the verdict), who I do not believe
recognized me as one of the jurors, in that moment.
It quickly occurred to me that we were two people who were
headed home for entirely different reasons.
One of us would be free to continue with the remainder of our
lives in a relatively normal manner with this trial as a memory,
and the other will likely spend the remainder of her days at
least in part thinking, ‘what if only.’

Juror # 5
David Scott

30