Courtney Roldan and Brad Anderson Contributing
Analysis of the Aaron Spencer Pre‑Trial Hearings
The pre‑trial hearings for Aaron Spencer, the Lonoke County father and sheriff candidate charged with second‑degree murder in the death of Michael Fosler, have revealed a prosecution case riddled with inconsistencies, missing evidence, and questionable relevance. From unreliable cell‑site data to mishandled dashcam footage, the hearings have raised serious concerns about whether the state can meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Part of the hearing focused on the mishandling of evidence
Four LCSO officers and a defense tech expert testified, showing how poorly the investigation was conducted. Officers admitted they didn’t follow their own protocols but said they didn’t have to.
No photo was ever taken of Fosler’s dash cam, and only 20ish photos were taken of the crime scene, including Fosler’s truck, which allegedly contained six SD cards. Deputy McCain testified he only took pictures of the vehicle from the edge of the vehicle. He did not go into the vehicle to take pictures which is why he didn’t see the glowing dash cam in the lit cab of the truck. But he did find Fosler’s wallet under the driver’s seat.
Neither Fosler’s nor Aaron’s vehicle was processed until June of 2025.
A search warrant for Fosler’s electronic devices wasn’t done until October 2025, when multiple computers, hard drives, devices, and SD cards were found, most still unprocessed.
Detective McCain testified that he has not watched responding deputies body cameras. These show evidence and statements made prior to his arrival. He also admitted he violated policy in evidence handling.
Carla Lucas testified that she never reviewed McCains work to even know if he followed evidence protocol. She also testified that NO OTHER evidence has been mishandled in this case. I can’t believe someone says that with a straight face.
A Case Built on Unreliable Technology
One of the prosecution’s central pillars is cell‑site location data presented by a federal agent. The state argues that Spencer’s phone “pinged” in ways that align with their timeline of the shooting. But the defense pushed back hard, and rightly so.
Cell‑site data can show a general area, not a precise location. Even the prosecution’s own witness acknowledged the limitations of the technology. Despite this, the judge allowed the testimony without requiring satellite imagery or more robust corroboration.
For a case of this magnitude, relying on imprecise technology to place a defendant at a scene is a shaky foundation at best. At worst, it risks misleading a jury.
Irrelevant Bodycam Footage Meant to Prejudice, Not Prove
The prosecution also introduced bodycam footage from three months before the shooting, footage that has nothing to do with the night in question. In it, an officer tells Spencer not to “take the law into your own hands” during the initial rape investigation involving his daughter.
The defense argued that the footage is irrelevant to the murder charge, and they’re right. Emotional context is not evidence. A father expressing anger after learning his daughter was sexually abused is not proof of premeditation months later. Introducing this footage risks inflaming jurors rather than informing them.
If the bodycam footage from 3 months prior is so important to the prosecution’s case then why were Deputies on scene instructed to turn off body cameras when CID arrived, which they said is policy during the most important parts of investigations, leaving vital evidence unrecorded.
*Turning off body cameras is prohibited by policy. Deputies have been fired for this.
The Missing Dashcam Footage: A Serious Blow to Due Process
Perhaps the most troubling revelation from the hearings is the disappearance of dashcam footage from Fosler’s truck, footage that could have shown the moments leading up to the shooting.
According to testimony, the lead detective failed to properly log the video into evidence. It sat in his office for a year before anyone realized it was missing, and by then, it was too late to preserve it.
The dash cam wasn’t entered into evidence until October 2025. Officer McCain never documented or photographed it in any report. He claimed he removed the SD card and reviewed the data, including four 15-minute videos showing only blue lights, but admitted he didn’t watch them in their entirety, contradicting his sworn affidavit. So he either lied under oath or lied on his affidavit?!
The dash cam with SD card was allegedly kept in McCain’s office cabinet before and after review, never photographed or logged into evidence, and placed in a manila envelope secured only by a metal clasp. No explanation was given for the missing SD card.
The camera was reported to have been transported to the AG’s office in November of 2024 but for some reason the AG didn’t tell anyone pertinent to the case that it had no SD card or memory until June 2025. McCain said they searched his office and the transport vehicle but did not locate the card.
Despite admitting fault, McCain swore he had securely placed the SD card in the camera.
The IT witness explained that the camera’s built-in software organizes data the same way regardless of SD card type, creating two folders (front and back) and saving videos only in 1, 2, 3, or 5-minute increments. He tried to recreate a 15-minute video and couldn’t.
This is not a minor clerical error. This is spoliation of evidence.
Judge Elmore stated she will make a ruling in January On the dashcam fiasco.
When the state loses or destroys potentially exculpatory evidence, the defendant’s right to a fair trial is compromised. Jurors may never see footage that could have supported Spencer’s account of the confrontation, a confrontation that occurred after he found his missing daughter in the truck of the man accused of sexually abusing her.
The defense is expected to request a jury instruction acknowledging the state’s mishandling of evidence. Given the gravity of the error, such an instruction is not only appropriate, it’s essential.
Justice Denied: Defense Motions Denied
The Bigger Picture: Reasonable Doubt Is Everywhere
The defense’s position is not built on technicalities, it’s built on constitutional principles. A fair trial requires reliable evidence, properly preserved records, and relevance to the actual charges. The pre‑trial hearings have shown the opposite:
-
- Evidence that can’t pinpoint location
- Footage that has nothing to do with the incident
- Critical video lost due to investigative negligence
- Exclusion of evidence about Fosler’s “child grooming and sexual assault” history
When the state’s case is this fractured, reasonable doubt isn’t a stretch, it’s the only responsible conclusion.
Conclusion
There seems to be a coordinated effort to stack the deck against a man who protected his daughter.
Aaron Spencer’s defense team has every reason to challenge the prosecution’s narrative. The hearings have exposed a case that leans heavily on inference, emotion, and mishandled evidence. As the trial approaches, the central question becomes not whether Spencer acted out of fear, anger, or instinct, but whether the state can present a case strong enough to overcome the constitutional protections every defendant is guaranteed.
Right now, the pre‑trial record suggests they cannot.