Rebuttal witnesses briefly took the stand Thursday to impeach two statements Amy Parmer made during her testimony Tuesday.
Parmer, accused in the death of 17-month-old Kamryn Schlitter who died from blunt force head trauma in 2010, denied saying that she didn’t see any bruises on Kamryn the day she died and claimed she was told a DHS investigation into Kamryn’s bruising was unfounded or inconclusive.
Two witnesses testified her statements were false.
Parmer, 29, of Hiawatha, is charged with first-degree murder and child endangerment resulting in death. She is accused of inflicting the physical abuse of Kamryn, along with her ex-boyfriend Zyriah Schlitter, who was also Kamryn’s father. According to testimony, Parmer called 911 March 21, 2010 when Kamryn became unresponsive and began posturing. She died March 28, 2010.
Schlitter, 25, of Cedar Rapids, was convicted last December of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment resulting in death and is serving 50 years in prison.
Closing arguments will start 9 a.m. Monday after nearly three weeks of testimony. Both sides rested this week and after rebuttal testimony Thursday, the jury was excused until Monday so the attorneys and judge can work on jury instructions.
Follow Gazette Reporter Trish Mehaffey’s live coverage from the courtroom of closing arguments.
Sarah Bliss, a former DHS child abuse investigator, testified she never told Zyriah Schlitter, Parmer or anybody else that the investigation into Kamryn’s suspected abuse was inconclusive.
Parmer testified Tuesday that Schlitter told her the investigation was unfounded.
Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Darrell Simmons testified Parmer told him she didn’t see bruises or scratches on Kamryn when she gave her a bath March 21, 2010.
Parmer said she saw bruises on Kamryn in the month of March but not that day, Simmons said.
Tyler Johnston, Parmer’s attorney, made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal after the rebuttal, which was denied by 6th Judicial District Judge Marsha Beckelman. Beckelman said there was substantial evidence in the record to allow it to go to the jury for a verdict.
Before the testimony, a juror was dismissed and replaced by an alternate because he attempted to talk to a rebuttal witness about something unrelated to the case. He apologized, saying he didn’t mean to do anything improper.
Johnston asked the court to replace the juror and the state had no objection.
The excused juror then left the courtroom and sat down by another juror and started to tell her what happened, but a court reporter stopped him and told him he would have to leave.
No other jurors have been replaced.