Defendant admits to killing in Pittsylvania County capital murder trial
File photo
Dennis Lee Daniel
CHATHAM — Dennis Lee Daniel fidgeted on the witness stand as he answered questions Friday in Pittsylvania County Circuit Court.
The questions finished, and Judge Charles Strauss called a lunch recess.
After testimony, Daniel sat still and silent in his black suit jacket. His elbow rested on his thigh. His palm supported his forehead. Daniel stood up, lumbered across the courtroom and winced as he walked to his holding cell.
During his testimony, Daniel talked about his affair with Courtney Marie Servais, disrespect and his killing of Servais.Daniel is facing charges of capital murder, abduction, robbery and carjacking in the December kidnapping and death of Servais. Servais went missing Dec. 19 and was found Dec. 24.
Daniel testified about phone calls he made to Servais from prison in Halifax County on Dec. 5. The pair learned that neither had been faithful to the other, and Servais told Daniel that she had slept with his adult son.
Defense attorney Steven Milani asked Daniel why that made him angry.
“Disrespect,” Daniel said. “She had a relationship with my family. She spent Thanksgiving with my family.”
“How important is somebody showing respect to you?” Milani asked.
“A lifestyle that I led,” Daniel said, referring to his time as a drug dealer. “You had to be respectful. If not, you were taken advantage of.”
“Not having respect is dangerous?” Milani said.
“Yes. It could get you killed,” Daniel said.
Daniel walked Milani through Dec. 19, the day Daniel said he killed Servais. He said his memory of that day is spotty.
The defendant testified that Servais said something about Daniel’s son while they were at a trailer in Halifax County, where Daniel was staying.
“It was to the effect that I’m nothing like him,” Daniel said. “When that was said, I snapped.”
Daniel slapped her with the palm of his hand many times and smashed a coffee pot on her head.
“Were you taking your anger out on her?” Milani asked.
“Of course I was,” Daniel replied. “I was beating her. I taped her legs; I taped her hands. I did that to instill fear in her. To make her suffer.”
Daniel said he used his belt to choke Servais, not the extension cord that investigators found.
“I had my belt around her throat,” Daniel said. “I had my knee, and I was applying pressure. I felt her go limp.”
They left the trailer, and Daniel started driving, he said. He had no intentions of going anywhere, but they got to an abandoned house in Red Oak Hollow, where Daniel stopped the car, and they got out.
“I was ranting,” Daniel said. “I don’t know what I was saying.”
He turned his back to Servais; she ran to the car and cranked it.
“She was going to leave me,” Daniel said.
He tried to kick out the driver’s side window, but he couldn’t. He went to the passenger side, where the window was rolled down. Daniel pulled the glass out, turned the car off and pulled the emergency brake. He got Servais out of the car.
“She was laying on the ground,” Daniel said. “It pushed me back over the edge.
“I hit that girl in the head and watched her chest stop. I watched that girl stop breathing.”
Daniel said the object was heavy enough that he didn’t have to swing it. But he didn’t remember what it was.
“I remember dragging her body by her arm,” Daniel said.
Daniel said he didn’t take any jewelry from Servais.
“Do you know why you killed Courtney?” Milani asked.
“There’s no excuse,” Daniel said. “I didn’t mean to kill her. I had no plans to kill her. It’s senseless.”
During cross-examination, Pittsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney David Grimes pressed Daniel on the details of Dec. 19. Grimes asked if Daniel wrapped Servais’ head in clear tape. He held a plastic evidence bag that contained tape with blood and hair. Daniel maintained that he couldn’t remember.
He stressed that he wasn’t trying to hide anything.
Daniel cracked.
“You and I want the same thing for me,” Daniel told Grimes. “I want the death penalty. You want the death penalty.”
The defense finished presenting its evidence Friday and renewed their motion to strike the capital murder and robbery charges. The two sides will argue the motion Monday morning, when court resumes.
Closing arguments also begin Monday and will be followed by jury instructions and deliberation. If Daniel is found guilty of capital murder, the defense will present mitigating evidence, which is evidence that shows a defendant may deserve mercy. The jury will then decide whether the defendant will receive life in prison without parole or the death penalty.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Fly I am going to have to call your card again.
Direct quote from Fly: Only thing missing from here is if he was black almost every post would contain the word thug or welfare see keep it real all races commit crimes.
You are so blinded by racial bias and hate, your every thought is everyone is out to get the black man.
YOU HAVE BEEN,AND STILL ARE A BIGOT!!!
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
“You and I want the same thing for me,” Daniel told Grimes. “I want the death penalty. You want the death penalty.”
GIVE HIM WHAT HE ASKED FOR.
No the change the word’s I said thug ands welfare I have noting to do with how a sentence is presented nor do I describe those who break the law with labels except I will call those gaurd’s with dogs freaks, point blank I mean what did they do with the fluids if not breading.
Fly Poole - I called this animal an animal. I’m doing my part.
Besides, you have nothing to complain about. They’re trying to get this animal the death penalty. With your boy Wimbush in Danville, they didn’t event try for the death penalty for him (another animal) even though he so richly deserves it. So, a white guy might get the death penalty while a black guy doesn’t. MMmmmmm? Would you agree that’s a little racist?
See there, racism swings both ways.
Only thing missing from here is if he was black almost every post would contain the word thug or welfare see keep it real all races commit crimes.
Charitya33 - I too believe this animal deserves to die for his crime. Not because of any religious angle but rather because 1) he’s an animal and 2) he committed a brutal murder.
I think it’s dangerous to try to justify or not justify modern jurisprudence by quoting the Bible. In Deuteronomy (Chap 22?) it says something to the effect of people commiting adultery should be put to death. That may be the sentiment of their spouses, but no other reasonable person could hold that view. I also seem to remember some passage about stoning to death children who brought disrespect upon their families. Neither of these sentiments can survive in a civilized society unless you adopt the position of following the scriptures in administering justice.
This is one reason we have the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Jeffersonian doctrine of seperation of church and state. And when I read your comments justifing capital punishment based on religion, even though I agree with capital punishment, I am thankful for both Jefferson and the First Amendment. People should be punished by society when they violate society’s laws. As for violating God’s laws; that’s between them and God.
He has no clue to what respect means. Beating a woman to death because she “disrepected” you, please. He is a sorry excuse for a man. Death penalty, totally justified.
He has said he wants the death penalty, but his lawyers are arguing against it. Let him have it, and quickly! No need to wait 10 years and waste all that money. It is ludicrous to say it costs more for the electric chair process than to house them for life. Take him directly to the chair, give him his last request, and flip the switch. Be done with it. Let the punishment fit the crime. And let it be administered quickly.
This law was given to Moses to assure that the judges would render righteous and proper judgment. In every instance in the Old Testament when a reference was made to “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,“ it was referring to judgment rendered by judges. A punishment sufficient to serve as a deterrent to the crime was to be rendered. This law was also to insure against a judgment being rendered that was exorbitant. For a minor crime, you were not to lose your life; there was not to be unreasonable punishment. The measurement of punishment had to be exact. If you had caused the damage of someone’s eye, the punishment may not exceed that of removing an eye. In other words, the punishment had to be equal to the crime. What is being taught in the Old Testament by “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” is that the punishment rendered by the judges must be appropriate to the crime. It was not a license to seek revenge by individuals.
In EXO 21:22-25 we read, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [You see, it is in the context of judicial proceedings.] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.“ If you have committed murder, then you must give your life. That is still true today.
Capital punishment is appropriate for a murderer, but capital punishment is not appropriate for putting on a demonstration for democracy
The principle taught in our text is exactly the same as the intent of the law in the Old Testament Scripture, i.e., that the wrong doer shall pay as the judges determine. “...And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.“
In today’s society, people commit murder and receive three years in jail where they sit on a sofa in front of a television set; then they are turned free. This is not proper administration of justice. This type of sentence for such a crime is not a deterrent. What is happening? Murder is becoming rampant. The Lord says that in the judicial process, the punishment must be appropriate to the crime.
It would be so nice if he just committed suicide now and saved the taxpayers all the money and trouble. Eye for an eye, this would be the simplest for this case.
Advertisement