Judge Arthur L. Marmaduke
Prosecution: Assistant County Attorney Ed Bond, Jack Swidensky
Defense: Jerome Sullivan Sr.
November 12, 1964. Tama Hallmark identified Lana as her attacker during the preliminary hearing.
On September 9, 1965, Lana's defense team motioned to have the trial against their client dismiised. The attorneys argued that the wording in the information filed against Lana was confusing to them. Judge Arthur L. Marmaduke overruled the motion.
September 23, 1965. Elmo and Helen Hallmark take the stand.
Lana took the stand on September 27, 1965, the sixth day of the trial against him.
Tama Hallmark, nineteen years-old at the time, remained disabled on her right side. After months of therapy, she still spoke in broken sentences, which she managed with difficulty.
The defense hammered their contention that Tama Hallmark was incompetent. The attack had left her with difficulty speaking and walking, which did nothing to help prove her mental fortitude. Yet, even as she had trouble speaking, she was coherent. The defense claimed that Lana's identifiaction as her attacker had been planted in her mind by her parents and Mr. Hallmark's former secretary, Mrs. Warren.
Prosecutor Jack Swidensky, admonished the defense counsel for calling her "dear little girl" as they attempted to diminish her testimony. "They jumped on Tama pretty good," Swidensky had said. "She is multi-damaged but not incompetent."
An Oklahoma City neurosurgeon, Dr. R. B. Carl, stated before the court that Tama Hallmark was not mentally competent to testify for the prosecution due the injuries she had sustained in the attack. This opinion was shared by Dr. Gunder Haase, professor of neurology at Temple University in Philadelphia.
In rebuttal, the prosecution presented the testimony of Dr. Lorraine Schmidt, who was present when Tama Hallmark identified Lana as her attacker. Schmidt had related to investigators that Hallmark appeared to be normal at that time.
Dr. Duncan MacMasters, in charge of therapy Hallmark's therapy from April 1, 1964 until January 23, 1965 in Tulsa, also testified.
The prosecution concluded its case on September 25, 1965.
More to come on this page.
Certain names have been redacted, either in whole or in part. This information is omitted in consideration of persons living or their descendants, but is not a requirement on our part. The information presented, including what has been redacted, is a matter of public record. The right to reinstate this information at any time is retained. If you have any personal concerns with the contact on this site, please contact the webmaster. The matter will be addressed expeditiously.© Copyright 2009 CrimeShadows.com, Chris Yarbrough