"I'm Ambushed": Ted Bundy and His Lawyers, July 1979

Name: "I'm Ambushed": Ted Bundy and His Lawyers, July 1979
Uploaded: 2023-02-20
Duration: 9 min 37 s
Description: Days before the verdict, Ted Bundy's own lawyer asked the judge to rule again on whether he was competent to stand trial. Bundy told the court he had been "ambushed".

Days before the verdict, Ted Bundy's own lawyer asked the judge to rule again on whether he was competent to stand trial. Bundy told the court he had been "ambushed".

Subject: Ted Bundy
Recorded: July 21, 1979
Runtime: 9:37

Content warning: The opening reading of the indictment refers to the murder of two young women.

The Hearing

In July 1979 Ted Bundy was on trial in Miami for the Chi Omega murders. On Saturday, July 21, according to this TV report, Bundy told the court that public defender Margaret Good, not volunteer attorney Robert Haggard, would give the defense's closing argument. His senior lawyer, Ed Harvey, told Judge Edward D. Cowart that Haggard was the only member of the team who had prepared a closing argument, and then filed a motion asking the court to decide again whether his own client was competent to stand trial. Bundy said he had known nothing of it: "I come here this morning and, I, you know, I'm ambushed."

Historical Context

In the early hours of January 15, 1978, a man entered the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University in Tallahassee, killing Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman and injuring other women; another woman was attacked nearby the same night. Bundy, arrested in Pensacola in February 1978, was charged with the murders. Because of pre-trial publicity, the trial was moved to Miami. It was the first trial to be televised nationally in the United States, and Bundy took an active part in his own defense.

Circumstances of the Hearing

Before the trial, an earlier defense lawyer had raised doubts about Bundy's competency, and the court had held a competency hearing in Tallahassee and found him competent. In the footage Harvey argues that a further evidentiary hearing is needed and refers to the opinion of psychiatrist Dr. Emanuel Tanay. A prosecutor replies that Bundy is "difficult to work with" and "almost, uh, cunning in the way that he works against his lawyer", but that the doctors had found he did not meet the test for incompetence. The reporter says Cowart denied the motion, and then refused Harvey's request to withdraw the public defender's staff from the case.

What the Hearing Covers

Bundy tells the judge that the defense team had agreed the night before on what would happen, with no mention of motions on competency or to withdraw. When he suggests that, if he tried to argue the evidence to the jury himself, he would be carried away, Cowart asks whether he wants to make the closing argument, and Bundy replies, "Who are you working for?" Bundy says he does not like "to be made out as a fool or a difficult client". Cowart tells him he is surely "not the most congenial client in the world". Finally Haggard asks to be excused; Cowart lets him go and remarks, "And then there were three."

What Makes the Recording Significant

The footage shows, in the courtroom itself, the breakdown between Bundy and the lawyers appointed to defend him, days before the jury returned its verdict. The jury convicted him on July 24, 1979, and on July 31, 1979, Cowart sentenced him to death. Whether Bundy had been competent to stand trial was argued again in his later federal appeals.

Archival Importance

Florida allowed cameras in its courtrooms, and TV crews filmed the Miami trial. This report preserves the courtroom sound of the competency motion and of Bundy's response, which had been known only from written accounts of the trial.

Important Caveats

What Bundy says about his lawyers is his own account. The courtroom sound is edited by the original report and is not the whole hearing. Several passages are hard to hear and are marked as unclear in the transcript; some speaker attributions (including the prosecutor's identity) are judgements. The date of the courtroom exchanges comes from the reporter's narration. The uploader's description quotes 1979 newspaper reporting; quotations from that text that are not heard in the video are not used here.

Voice Reading The Indictment: This is an indictment of the State of Florida against Theodore Robert Bundy, alleging two counts of murder in the first degree, an attempted murder in the first degree, and burglary of a dwelling.

Reporter: This is the State of Florida versus Theodore Robert Bundy, for July 23rd, 1979. And I'm Ed Hula, reporting from Miami, Florida. The defense rested its case today. The final testimony came during a session of court scheduled this afternoon so that attorneys for the prosecution and defense could meet with Judge Edward Cowart to discuss the charge he will deliver to the jurors once final arguments are made in this case. The scheduling was done at the end of a full day in court this past Saturday, July 21st. Saturday brought more developments in Bundy's relationship with his attorneys. He announced at the beginning of Saturday's session that defense attorney Margaret Good will deliver closing arguments for the defense, not Robert Haggard, who was the choice of the defense team to make this presentation. The veto of Haggard by Bundy did not sit well with defense counsel Ed Harvey.

Ed Harvey: Judge, for purposes of the record then, there's only been, there's been one counsel on our team who's prepared closing argument the entire trial. None of the rest of us have at all. Mr. Haggard has spent the entire trial keeping notes and preparing closing argument. He's the only one who's prepared and will be prepared in a reasonable amount of time. Now, it's my, as a lawyer, professional, it's my recommendation, in fact, it's, it's my wish, that Mr. Haggard give closing argument.

Judge: That's been communicated to Mr. Bundy?

Ed Harvey: Yes, sir.

Judge: And he made the decision, or he participated in the making of the decision, that he's previously made known to the court?

Ed Harvey: All right.

Judge: And so be it. I, I think that's, I think that's no problem in the record. I, I can recall quite a few times when clients did things that I didn't advise them as lawyers. But they still are clients. The fact that there's [unclear: "public attorney" / "this public attorney"] really makes very little difference. And certain, I don't want, and I will not have the record show that, uh, that this is more than a, as he indicated, some of a compromise. Which must indicate that, as, more or less, the one who has been involved in it the longest, since I've been involved in it, of course, it's been you. And if that's your decision, that, that's your decision, and I have no reservation in saying to you that if the record reveals that that is your position, and it does, then we'll proceed on, and in a manner that is consistent with what he wants done.

Ed Harvey: Judge, I'll be filing with the court a copy of this. This is a motion to redetermine if my client is competent to stand trial, and request for an evidentiary hearing. And I believe that this has to be in the record at this point. So I'd like the court to make a specific ruling this time on his competency and mental capacity.

Ed Harvey: Over my strong objections and over my recommendation.

Judge: Of course, you and I know that Dr. Tanay's record, uh, is before the court, has been before the court, and the court has considered it in its entirety. There might not have been [unclear: "a ration of it" / "an iteration of it"], but there was consideration of it by the court, and the court held a competency hearing.

Ed Harvey: Yes, sir. I understand. I, uh...

Judge: Has there been any further determination of, uh, any further, uh...

Ed Harvey: We could have further examination.

Ed Harvey: [unclear: "I stand on the record. It is reflected in the record." (Whisper) / "The state of the record reflecting the record of the client's problem." (captions)]

Judge: What say the state?

Prosecutor: Well, uh, Judge, I think everything that the record has reflected in it is just exactly what we brought out in the evidentiary hearings in Tallahassee. The man is difficult to work with. He's almost, uh, cunning in the way that he works against his lawyer sometimes, and he reaches a level where he's unbearably hard to work with. But all of that, uh, notwithstanding, the doctors told us that it does not meet the test for legal insanity and legal incompetence. I think Dr. Tanay indicated that.

Ed Harvey: Judge, he indicated it was a question. It was up to the court.

Judge: Well, I think the court has ruled on it. I'm trying to make a determination of need for further evidentiary hearing.

Ed Harvey: Judge, I think that, that if we, that we do need it, for evidentiary hearing, because I, I believe that if we were able to fully develop Dr. Tanay's testimony, and, uh, we did not, we did not achieve cross-examining Dr. [unclear: "Blackman" (captions only)]. We did not achieve to question Dr. Tanay, because at that time it was pre-trial and the question of law was being heard. At this time, we would be able to...

Judge: [unclear: "His entire report was filed of record?" / "entire report was filed record"]

Ed Harvey: Yes.

Judge: Court has considered it.

Ed Harvey: Yes, sir. Judge...

Judge: Considered it when I ruled. And I think that, I think Dr. Tanay's observations are in fact manifest. But Dr. Tanay's observations and Dr. Tanay's conclusions did not set forth [the] legal standard upon which [unclear: "in conference" / "incompetence"]. I've never seen anybody that I think really is more cognizant that a trial is going on. Now, while he might not be able to communicate with his attorneys, he has communicated a great deal to the court, and to his attorneys, in the standpoint that, uh, I don't think there's a question of this man meeting the legal standard as competent to stand trial. Probably the best evidence of that is from himself.

Reporter: Harvey's motion was denied by Judge Cowart, who said that the previous testimony on this issue indicated that Bundy was competent to stand trial. Then Harvey followed by asking Judge Cowart to allow him to withdraw the staff of the public defender from the case. Cowart refused this motion, too, and Bundy responded to this pair of motions and said they indicated the problems he was having communicating with his lawyers.

Ted Bundy: Well, I think the point is that the problem that we've had is communication, and I wouldn't want to point it out, and make it clear, these things constantly come back on me and make me look bad, when in fact last night, when we had this conference that I just told your honor about, there was unanimity amongst the group that this was going to happen, as I told the court. There was no suggestion at that time there was going to be any motions on [unclear: "incompetency" / "competency"] or any motions to withdraw. Yet I come here this morning and, I, you know, I'm ambushed, and people [unclear: "will make me look bad" / "are making a motion"].

Judge: [unclear: "Having lost yet?" / "You haven't lost yet?"]

Ted Bundy: [unclear: "Having lost yet?" / "I haven't lost yet."] I don't intend to. But if I had decided to [do] closing argument, I think Mr. Harvey had a point. If I wanted to get up there and talk to the jury about the evidence presented in this trial, he'd have, he'd, [unclear: "shoot, they'd"] carry me away right now.

Judge: Uh, probably would. Do you want to make closing argument? I'll arrange to have you be carried away.

Ted Bundy: Who are you working for, your honor? I resent that. I'll, I'll supply the court, I, I think it's important to supply the court a written statement, perhaps. 'Cause I, I don't like to be made out as a fool or a difficult client. I hope Mr. McKeever would think I'm difficult, but that's easy, 'cause he's on the other side. I, I think I'm in a, I'm in a position to make a closing statement.

Judge: Mr. Bundy, in your legal circles, 'cause I'm sure you're not the most congenial client in the world. Lawyers [unclear: "are part lawyers, never are" / "are poor clients, never all"]. I represented in my career quite a few lawyers, and I was always glad when their cases were over.

Ted Bundy: I'm sure. That's it. That's enough said. I, let's get on with it.

Speaker Not Identified: [unclear: "I'm going to see how the closing argument goes" / "I'm good to see I'm losing argument, though"].

Judge: I'm hot to trot. [unclear: "I'm not ready to sit down and talk to anybody" / "I might really step out and take that"].

Robert Haggard: Your honor, I have one brief motion. Since I stand in the special posture of the office of [unclear: "complimentary counsel" / "complementary counsel"], and Mr. Bundy's [unclear: "seeks a limited right to practice as assistant counsel" / "Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel"] will not be affected whatsoever, I would seek leave to be excused.

Judge: Any objection to that?

Ted Bundy: Uh, no, your honor.

Robert Haggard: Thank you, [unclear: "Mr. Bundy" / "sir"].

Judge: Thank you. You're excused. And then there were three. ---