Jury convicts Brock on three counts of murder, fetal homicide

A Corbin man was found guilty of the 2018 murders of Aaron Byers, Mary Jackson, Tiffany Byers and the fetal homicide of Tiffany Byers’ unborn child last Thursday in Whitley Circuit Court.

Paul Oliver Brock, of Corbin, was also found guilty of one count of tampering with physical evidence.

The verdict was reached after nine days of testimony. Jury selection began on March 1.

“We appreciate the jury’s service,” said Commonwealth’s Attorney Ronnie Bowling after the verdict was announced. “They put their life on hold for a month for a four-week trial, and we are just extremely grateful they listened to the evidence and gave it meaningful weight. We are grateful on behalf of the victims’ family for the verdict that was returned.”

Brock was officially sentenced Tuesday after signing a sentencing agreement accepting life without the possibility of parole.

If the jury had been allowed to determine the sentence, Brock could have faced anywhere from 20 years to the death penalty, said Bowling.

The verdict was handed down Thursday after both defense and prosecution had the opportunity to present closing arguments.

Defense counsel’s closing argument

The defense used its final opportunity to address the jury to point out ‘holes’ in the prosecution’s story. As defense counsel told the jury, jurors only needed to have reasonable doubt to find Brock not guilty of the charges.

Like defense had done with its witnesses, it started its argument by admitting that Brock killed Aaron ‘Biggs’ Byers. While Defense Counsel Andrea Kendall emphasized that the killing was done in self-defense, the jury was not convinced.

Kendall laid out the defense’s version of events as follows: Brock and Biggs went to Richmond on Saturday to pick up some pills. When they returned, the duo drove to an apartment on American Greeting Road to meet with an acquaintance. When the acquaintance was not home, Brock and Biggs travelled to 102 Ellison Street, which is where Jackson and Byers were eventually found deceased.

Upon arrival at the residence, Brock recalled listening to Biggs and Tiffany Byers verbally argue.

As Brock attempted to leave, Biggs said he would be going with Brock and the duo began to exit the home.

When Brock was in the truck, he saw Biggs exit the house followed by Byers who allegedly threw something – the object was not identified – at Biggs. Biggs turned around and went back into the house with Byers.

While in the home, Kendall said Biggs shot Byers, who then ran from her bedroom to the dining room. She said Biggs hit Jackson in the head causing a hemorrhage, which was found during Jackson’s autopsy.

Biggs then shot Jackson. He allegedly shot Byers one last time before reloading his gun and leaving the residence.

He eventually went out to Brock’s truck and told him to drive. Brock claimed that Biggs began insisting that Brock take him back to Richmond, but he refused since he and Biggs had already been there that day.

Based on Brock’s testimony, Kendall reiterated that Brock pulled over to the side of the road and told Biggs to get out of his vehicle. When Biggs refused to exit, Brock told him that he would get him out, and Brock began exiting the vehicle.

At this point, Kendall said Biggs began to physically assault Brock, and he eventually pulled a gun with the intent to kill him.

Kendall said that Brock entered a, “kill or be killed,” situation and Brock chose to kill after taking the gun from Biggs.

Brock shot Biggs, according to his own testimony, until he stopped moving.

Looking for reasonable doubt in witnesses

With defense’s timeline established, Kendall began to attempt ‘poking holes’ in the prosecutions argument.

Kendall began with the testimony of Justin Collins, who is Jackson’s grandson and Byers brother.

She explains that Collins lived a separate life from his sister citing the fact that he claimed to have not known she was pregnant.

Kendall begins listing the ways Collins’ testimony was inconsistent: he was wrong about the number of shots fired in the house, wrong about where the shots were fired in the home, uncertain about Brock’s image, wrong about Brock’s age, wrong about Brock’s grandson’s age, and inconsistencies within his timeline.

Kendall brought attention to portions of Collins’ testimony where he claimed to have jumped out of a window headfirst. She explained how numerous witnesses said that it was raining that day, yet Collins appeared to be clean and dry when police arrived. Kendall said no muddy footprints were found within the home.

She noted that the home had been ransacked, but Collins’ room remained untouched.

“Did Justin ransack the house looking for drugs,” Kendall asked the jury. “Why is Justin lying?”

Kendall reminded the jury that Collins was found to have two of the three chemical components of gunshot residue on his hands, and he stood to inherit the property of both Byers and Jackson if they died.

Having attempted to discredit Collins, Kendall also addressed the testimony of Michael Christie and Dylan Hatfield, acquaintances of Biggs and Brock.

Finally, Kendall turned her attention to Brock’s testimony.

She told the jury that he didn’t have to talk to them, but he wanted to. It was evident on the day he spoke with police he was under the influence.

Kendall told the jury that Brock lied to the police numerous times because he didn’t trust them.

Looking for reasonable doubt in evidence

Having addressed the witnesses, Kendall began pointing out what defense counsel believed were inconsistencies with the evidence.

For example, Kendall said Brock would not have ransacked the house because he didn’t know where the valuables were, but police testified that information about the ransacked house was not released to the public until after Brock made statements that he didn’t know where the valuables were hidden.

Kendall referred to the blood in Brock’s truck and how the DNA found all matched Biggs.

Kendall referenced the DNA found under Jackson’s fingernails during her autopsy which also matched Biggs.

Kendall ended her argument by stating that the DNA found matched Biggs because he killed Mary.

“Biggs killed Mary. Biggs killed Tiffany. Brock killed Biggs,” said Kendall.

She left the jury to ponder one question, “What hard evidence ties Paul to the deaths at 102 Ellison?”

Prosecution’s closing argument

Like the defense counsel, Bowling attempted to paint a timeline for the jury about how he believed the events of Feb. 17, 2018 took place.

He told the jury that day, Brock and Biggs went to Richmond. Biggs told Byers and Jackson goodbye, but he wouldn’t realize that the goodbye would be for forever.

Bowling told jurors that dispatch received a phone call from Collins that day, and he played the recording for the jury once again.

He called on the testimony of witnesses like Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm Detective Todd Tremaine who told the jury that there was no evidence that Collins had lied about the events.

Bowling declared that defense counsel believed that if it could discredit Collins as a witness, the prosecution’s case would be destroyed.

“Paul, you shot me,” Bowling stated, were probably the truest words Byers had ever spoken.

Bowling said defense counsel would have jurors believe that Byers was hallucinating a five-foot eleven-inch white man was attacking her rather than a six-foot seven-inch black man.

Again, Bowling defended Collins testimony by arguing who can distinguish between 10 and 20 feet when a gun is fired in a house.

Bowling said the silver truck was not a coincidence, but rather it corroborated the facts Collins told police. The silver truck was caught on the surveillance cameras of a nearby business around the time of the murders.

Why were there no muddy footprints? Bowling said the explanation was because Collins ran on black top rather than on the muddy grass.

“Why would Justin Collins lie?” Bowling asked the jury.

Bowling again responded to what defense counsel labelled as the incongruencies in Collins testimony stating Collins couldn’t have fired the gun because if he had, he would have had all three chemicals related to gunshot residue on his hands rather than only having two.

Collins identification of Brock was unprompted, Bowling said. He explained that Collins was interviewed by the Corbin Police Department, and he identified Brock based on photos he was shown. The photos appeared in a linear grid on the computer, Corbin Police Detective Coy Wilson told the jury.

Collins asked Wilson to zoom in on a photo of Brock unprompted. That was the first time Paul ‘Brock’ was identified.

In addition to defending Collins, Bowling also defended witnesses like Christie and Hatfield saying that defense counsel tried to discredit them like Collins because they were essential to the case.

Investigating ‘Brock’

After that identification, the investigation into Brock began.

Bowling said that much of the information Brock gave to police was wrong and full of blatant lies, but using the excuse, “I was too high” to justify the inconsistencies, is an easy out, Bowling told the jury.

In his two-hour interview with police, Brock never once told police that Biggs had assaulted him, and in fact, he said the opposite stating, “He never touched me.”

Bowling argued that a man claiming self-defense doesn’t lie about being attacked.

He told jurors, a man that kills in self-defense doesn’t try to bleach the crime scene or try to bury his victim.

Bowling told the jury that a man who kills in self-defense stands on the mountaintop and proclaims he did nothing wrong.

Bowling noted that Brock confirmed for the jury that many of the ‘vivid, descriptive stories’ he told the police were lies.

One such story was about his alleged affair with Byers. Brock told police that, “it was more emotional,” and went into detail about the ‘feelings’ that led to the alleged intercourse.

On the stand, Brock denied that he ever had an affair. He said that he didn’t know why he said that because it didn’t happen.

Bowling said the story was an example of Brock’s incredibly effective and vivid story telling.

Inferences made from that story could have led jurors to believe that, “Baby B is not Baby Byers,” Bowling said. “Baby B is Baby Brock.”

Looking at the evidence

Bowling encouraged the jury to look at the evidence – bleach in the truck, a body adjacent to Brock’s property, clothing and personal items disposed of.

He told jurors an innocent man would not throw away evidence that could be used to exonerate him, but guilty people throw away evidence that could convict them.

Inconsistent timeline

Bowling said that Brock’s testimony on the stand was an attempt to explain away the evidence, but he pointed out that by testifying, Brock muddied his own timeline.

Brock claimed that he was in Richmond between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Feb. 17, but a neighbor testified that Brock was visiting his property on Corinth Cemetery Road between those hours.

Brock said during his testimony that Byers had thrown an object at Biggs when they came outside, but no object was located in the driveway.

Bowling questioned Brock’s story that Biggs killed Byers and Jackson by asking, why Biggs, who knew that Collins would have been in the house because he lived there and would have heard him that morning moving around with Jackson, did not kill the man who could have fought him best?

Bowling pointed out that if Brock’s story was true then when Biggs confronted Brock, he chose to fight hand-to-hand rather than shoot the grown man who would have fought back. This was not the choice he made with the grandmother who could not walk without assistance.

Regardless of the logic, Bowling said the evidence doesn’t support the story that the entire fight occurred within the confines of the truck.

Bowling returned to the evidence in the house, including an image of Jackson after her death.

In the image, Jackson could be seen in her recliner. The pillow on which her head rested was unmoved and her hands were laying in her lap.

Looking at the picture, Bowling asked the jury if it looked like Jackson had tried to fight back based on the position she was found in.

Red Herrings

Bowling described the defense counsel’s story as being full of red herrings. He explained that red herrings were once used to throw hunting dogs off the scent of a fox. In legal terms, a red herring is an issue or fact that is used to divert the attention away from the main facts or issues.

At the end of his closing argument, Bowling told the jury to ignore the red herrings that the defense counsel was trying to use to throw them off the scent of the man who killed Biggs, Jackson, Byers, and Byers’ unborn child.

After almost five hours of deliberation, the 12-member jury returned the guilty verdict at approximately 7:15 p.m.