State Asks for Facts About Slain Officer to Be Kept Out of Murder Trial

Prosecutors have asked a judge to keep a jury from hearing some information about a Tuscaloosa Police Investigator who was fatally shot more than six years ago when his killer finally goes to trial.

As the Thread has extensively covered, Luther Bernard Watkins, Jr. is expected to soon stand trial on a capital murder charge for the September 2019 shooting of Tuscaloosa Police Investigator Dornell Cousette.

Cousette was shot in the head during a gunfight with Watkins at a home in west Tuscaloosa - police and prosecutors said he was killed in the line of duty by a dangerous 19-year-old who was wanted on robbery and assault charges the night of their confrontation.

Defense teams for Watkins, who is now on his third set of attorneys, have said the killing was an act of self-defense - that Cousette was off-duty, although uniformed, and acting against a supervisor's orders when he pursued a fleeing Watkins into the home.

Experts have also testified on Watkins' behalf that he was shot in the back and was likely on the ground with the investigator standing over him when he fired the fatal shot. Cousette also fired a second time, shooting Watkins on the ground, but the then-19-year-old survived both bullet wounds and was arrested for capital murder after being treated.

Get our free mobile app

He's been held in the Tuscaloosa County Jail without bond since that time, and the case appears finally set to go to trial the first or second week of February, if there are no further delays. Watkins is now 26.

Last week, prosecutors led by Chief Assistant District Attorney Paula Whitley Abernathy filed two motions asking Judge Brad Almond to prevent certain information about Cousette from being mentioned during the trial.

Almond retired from the bench in December but has special permission from the state to continue presiding over this prosecution to ensure there are no further delays in reaching trial.

The case is moving to trial after Almond rejected Watkins's self-defense claims last year following a hearing with his last legal team.

Almond ruled that Watkins was breaking the law when he fled from Cousette and could not have been acting in self-defense while committing a crime. The state appellate court also declined to give Watkins pre-trial immunity.

The first Motion in Limine asks Almond to prevent the defense from referencing a conversation between Investigator Cousette and TPD Officer Bobby Windham just before the gunfight.

It was reportedly during this conversation that Windham told Cousette that there were no available units to back him up, and that he should not go to Watkins' location or attempt to apprehend him.

"Cousette and I talked for 3 minutes and 41 seconds. During the conversation, we concluded that he wouldn't go and that he would wait," Windham testified in 2019.

"The content of the conversation between the victim and Officer Windham is irrelevant and has no probative value regarding the interaction between Officer Cousette and the Defendant and whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the criminal charges," Whitley Abernathy wrote.

Whitley Abernathy also asked Almond to restrict any mention of a possible financial incentive for Cousette to apprehend Watkins. Cousette was accompanied that day by bail bondsman Edward Giles, and prosecutors do not want that brought up at trial.

"The unproven allegations are not relevant to any issue pending before the Court. There is no evidence of the credibility of these allegations and instead only serves as an attempt to insert negative or bad character evidence," she wrote.

In motions filed Friday, defense attorneys Christopher Daniel, Justin Forrester, and Scott Brower argued that both details are relevant and should be allowed to be mentioned at trial.

"The propriety of Cousette's actions in going to arrest Watkins followed by him shooting Watkins in the back will be the central question for the jury's consideration," they wrote. "In a case of self-defense, as this court well knows, the actions of the victim and their state of mind are something the jury can and almost certainly will consider when weighing the defendant's actions and state of mind."

They also wrote that Giles was not even the bondsman officially tied to Watkins' previous arrests and had "zero reason to think about Watkins, much less chase him down."

"What possible reason could Giles have to bring a police officer into a potentially violent situation where no one had a purpose to be there unless there was some type of incentive or reward?" they wrote. "As the first [motion] response touches on: Cousette was told and flat-out agreed not to pursue Watkins that day yet did it anyway."

They asked Almond to deny both motions and to allow the defense to refer to both the phone call with Officer Windham and the Giles connection at trial.

Almond had not yet ruled on the state's requests and the defendant's answers as of Monday afternoon.

For ongoing coverage of this case and more exclusive coverage of crime and courts in West Alabama, stay connected to the Tuscaloosa Thread.