What the jury heard at the Faith Hedgepeth murder trial, and its verdict

Faith Hedgepeth, 19, a sophomore at UNC-Chapel Hill, was found dead in her off-campus apartment on Sept. 7, 2012 (The Daily Tar Heel). Nine years later, police arrested Miguel Enrique Salguero-Olivares. Fourteen years later, a jury heard the case (AP).

The verdict

On Oct. 23, the jury found Salguero-Olivares guilty of first-degree murder, rape, sexual offense and burglary. Judge Keith O. Gregory sentenced him to life in prison without parole, plus consecutive terms on the other counts (AP; WRAL).

Her parents told the court they forgive him. “It didn't matter who done it, I knew that I had to forgive, and I do forgive, but my heart aches for his family,” her mother, Connie Hedgepeth, said (AP).

What prosecutors told the jury

Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca told jurors Salguero-Olivares attacked Hedgepeth in a fit of rage, not because he knew her. She said his DNA was found on a bloody rum bottle prosecutors called the murder weapon, on a note written on a fast-food bag and on other evidence. “The evidence in this case is louder than the noise around it,” she said (AP).

Bench Watch BreakdownFirst-degree murder and felony murderShow or hide the explanation

What it means

In North Carolina, first-degree murder is a killing that was planned. It can also be a killing that happens during another serious crime, like rape or a break-in. That second kind is called felony murder.

In this case

The state also charged rape, sexual offense and burglary, and it did not seek the death penalty. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, so the law required life in prison with no parole.

Why it matters

Under felony murder, the state doesn't have to prove the killing was planned. It has to prove the other crime and the death.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-17

What the defense told the jury

Defense lawyer James Rainsford told jurors to ask, “Where's the rest of the evidence?” He pointed to sounds a neighbor reported hearing in the early morning and to a blood swab police lost (AP).

On cross-examination, a forensic technician testified that doorknobs at the scene weren't tested, hand towels weren't collected, and Hedgepeth's phone couldn't be processed after a sergeant handled it (ABC11).

The missing swab

Before trial, the defense asked Judge Keith O. Gregory to dismiss the case over the lost swab, taken from a blood stain on a bathroom door frame. He refused, ruling there were no grounds to dismiss, and called the loss “absurd” (WRAL).

At trial, the technician who tested the stain said the step to collect the sample “was a step that was missed” (The News & Observer). The specialist who was training her testified that she believed a swab was collected. She told jurors: “We searched the truck. We searched the lab” (ABC11).

Bench Watch BreakdownLost evidence and “bad faith”Show or hide the explanation

What it means

When police lose evidence, a case is not always thrown out. Under a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Arizona v. Youngblood, the defense usually has to show the police lost it on purpose, in bad faith. Being careless is usually not enough.

In this case

Police lost a swab of a blood stain from a bathroom door frame. The judge refused to dismiss the case and let the trial go on. The defense raised the missing swab in its opening statement.

Why it matters

Lost evidence can hurt both sides. A missing test can leave a jury with questions no one can answer.

Arizona v. Youngblood (1988)

What the jury didn't hear

Before trial, Judge Gregory ruled that the jury would not hear genetic genealogy evidence, and he excluded the opinions of a defense forensic expert (ABC7). Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty (The News & Observer), so under North Carolina law a first-degree murder conviction carried life in prison without parole (N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-17).

What happens next

The state rested Oct. 19 after 23 witnesses. The defense called none, and Salguero-Olivares didn't testify (ABC11).

District Attorney Satana Deberry said his lawyers filed notice of appeal the evening of the verdict (The Daily Tar Heel). On Nov. 3, his lawyers asked Judge Gregory for a new trial; no hearing date has been reported (WRAL; ABC11). Bench Watch is following the appeal in the case file.