Jury finds Klinger guilty
Matthew Hundley / (matthew.hundley@averyjournal.com)
After listening to evidence from the prosecution for more than
a week, the jury hearing the trial of William Charles Klinger deliberated for several hours before
returning a guilty verdict last Friday, Jan. 20.
“The prosecution delivered evidence up until late Thursday. The prosecution gave their closing arguments on Friday, then it went to the jury on Friday,” said Avery Sheriff Kevin Frye, noting the lack of evidence presented by the defense. “The defense did not put on any evidence; they hoped that they would fail to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In the end, Frye said the sheriff’s office saw the result they had worked toward.
“We got the outcome that we were hoping for and that we had worked many hours toward getting,” said Frye. “My detectives spent hundreds of hours. It is something that we are never eager to have happen in our county, but we are glad we were able to make sure that justice was served.”
The evidence that the sheriff’s office and other agencies worked to compile was presented on behalf of the state by Assistant District Attorney Britt Springer, who described the court proceedings in detail.
“The state put on evidence from Thursday, the 11th, up through the 19th,” said Springer. “Our last witness came down off the stand on Thursday afternoon and we slated closings for Friday morning. Both parties gave closing (arguments) Friday morning then it went to the jury at 12:30 p.m. From 12:30 to 1 p.m., the jury was deliberating, then they went out to lunch until I think 2:15. The judge, at 5 p.m. called them out. They said, ‘Wait, we’re almost done, don’t send us home.’ So, then the jury came back around 5:20 p.m. on Friday.”
According to Springer, the verdict was “guilty” for all the charges considered. In sentencing, the judge determined that Klinger would serve the sentences for most of the various charges consecutively, meaning that each conviction’s sentence would be added back to back.
“What the judge did is stack them back to back,” explained Springer. “He got a minimum of 150.5 years to 186 years.”
Klinger’s official conviction was for statutory sexual offense against a person who is 13 years of age, indecent liberties with a child and selling or delivering a controlled substance to a minor. The first of those three charges carries the heaviest penalties.
“It is a B1 felony,” explained Springer. “It goes from class A, which is first-degree murder, to a B2, which is like second-degree murder, so on the seriousness scale, it is somewhere in between first-degree murder and second-degree murder.”
While technically not a life sentence, Klinger’s minimum 150.5-year sentence will mean that he will never leave prison unless he successfully appeals the results of his trial. Klinger’s attorney filed for appeal on Monday. According to Springer, the attempt at an appeal is expected.
“It’s almost automatic,” said Springer. When asked if Klinger’s attorney was likely to have success with the appeal, Springer explained their likely approach.
“Part of the state’s evidence was that this man was grooming the child. Part of the grooming process was this man would introduce this boy to Satanism,” said Springer, who also explained that the law guards against prosecutors discussing a religious choice like Satanism because it is deemed prejudicial.
“In my case, I had to question him about it because it was part of my case. There was no case law on that point, so that’s probably the big one that is going to go up. When it goes up to appeal, I’m sure there are going to be a half-dozen grounds where they will try to appeal it, but I think that is going to be the big one,” said Springer, who was confident that, because of the way the information was introduced, the appellate court would not grant the appeal. “I do not foresee a problem with it because it was historically part of my case. The state did not introduce it. It was the defendant who introduced it. It should not benefit him because it is prejudicial. He does not get to bring it up then say ‘don’t bring that up’ when it was him bringing it to the case, not us.”
In describing the proceedings, Springer commented on the cohesive effort of the community in supporting the victim.
“I will say, this whole community absolutely rallied around this child in this case. We had juvenile court counselors being called as witnesses; we had therapists; we had doctors. Everybody wanted to do their part in this case, because we saw the danger; we saw the child and we could not keep the defendant away from him. Sitting in the trial for the closing arguments, we had Banner Elk police chief, we had the sheriff, we had officers that were involved, we had juvenile court counselors who were involved, we had doctors who were involved. Everybody saw the danger and they were standing behind this boy after what he was put through.”
“The prosecution delivered evidence up until late Thursday. The prosecution gave their closing arguments on Friday, then it went to the jury on Friday,” said Avery Sheriff Kevin Frye, noting the lack of evidence presented by the defense. “The defense did not put on any evidence; they hoped that they would fail to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In the end, Frye said the sheriff’s office saw the result they had worked toward.
“We got the outcome that we were hoping for and that we had worked many hours toward getting,” said Frye. “My detectives spent hundreds of hours. It is something that we are never eager to have happen in our county, but we are glad we were able to make sure that justice was served.”
The evidence that the sheriff’s office and other agencies worked to compile was presented on behalf of the state by Assistant District Attorney Britt Springer, who described the court proceedings in detail.
“The state put on evidence from Thursday, the 11th, up through the 19th,” said Springer. “Our last witness came down off the stand on Thursday afternoon and we slated closings for Friday morning. Both parties gave closing (arguments) Friday morning then it went to the jury at 12:30 p.m. From 12:30 to 1 p.m., the jury was deliberating, then they went out to lunch until I think 2:15. The judge, at 5 p.m. called them out. They said, ‘Wait, we’re almost done, don’t send us home.’ So, then the jury came back around 5:20 p.m. on Friday.”
According to Springer, the verdict was “guilty” for all the charges considered. In sentencing, the judge determined that Klinger would serve the sentences for most of the various charges consecutively, meaning that each conviction’s sentence would be added back to back.
“What the judge did is stack them back to back,” explained Springer. “He got a minimum of 150.5 years to 186 years.”
Klinger’s official conviction was for statutory sexual offense against a person who is 13 years of age, indecent liberties with a child and selling or delivering a controlled substance to a minor. The first of those three charges carries the heaviest penalties.
“It is a B1 felony,” explained Springer. “It goes from class A, which is first-degree murder, to a B2, which is like second-degree murder, so on the seriousness scale, it is somewhere in between first-degree murder and second-degree murder.”
While technically not a life sentence, Klinger’s minimum 150.5-year sentence will mean that he will never leave prison unless he successfully appeals the results of his trial. Klinger’s attorney filed for appeal on Monday. According to Springer, the attempt at an appeal is expected.
“It’s almost automatic,” said Springer. When asked if Klinger’s attorney was likely to have success with the appeal, Springer explained their likely approach.
“Part of the state’s evidence was that this man was grooming the child. Part of the grooming process was this man would introduce this boy to Satanism,” said Springer, who also explained that the law guards against prosecutors discussing a religious choice like Satanism because it is deemed prejudicial.
“In my case, I had to question him about it because it was part of my case. There was no case law on that point, so that’s probably the big one that is going to go up. When it goes up to appeal, I’m sure there are going to be a half-dozen grounds where they will try to appeal it, but I think that is going to be the big one,” said Springer, who was confident that, because of the way the information was introduced, the appellate court would not grant the appeal. “I do not foresee a problem with it because it was historically part of my case. The state did not introduce it. It was the defendant who introduced it. It should not benefit him because it is prejudicial. He does not get to bring it up then say ‘don’t bring that up’ when it was him bringing it to the case, not us.”
In describing the proceedings, Springer commented on the cohesive effort of the community in supporting the victim.
“I will say, this whole community absolutely rallied around this child in this case. We had juvenile court counselors being called as witnesses; we had therapists; we had doctors. Everybody wanted to do their part in this case, because we saw the danger; we saw the child and we could not keep the defendant away from him. Sitting in the trial for the closing arguments, we had Banner Elk police chief, we had the sheriff, we had officers that were involved, we had juvenile court counselors who were involved, we had doctors who were involved. Everybody saw the danger and they were standing behind this boy after what he was put through.”