When a former adult film actress withdraws her guilty plea midway through prosecution, betting everything on proving her innocence in a beheading case, the courtroom becomes a battleground where family betrayal, missing evidence, and alternative suspects collide in ways that challenge everything jurors think they know about motive and guilt.
Quick Take
- Devyn Michaels, 45, stands trial for the August 2023 murder of Johnathan Willette, father of her two children, whose decapitated body was found in his Henderson, Nevada home
- Michaels initially pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 2024 but withdrew her plea in summer 2025, forcing prosecutors to prove their case at trial with no murder weapon and no recovered head
- The prosecution alleges Michaels killed Willette to eliminate an obstacle to her life with her current husband, Deviere Willette—Johnathan’s son from a previous relationship
- The defense counters with an explosive alternative theory: Deviere Willette, motivated by jealousy, murdered his own father, while Michaels remains an innocent scapegoat
- As of November 2025, active jury proceedings are underway with testimony from investigators, but critical physical evidence—including the victim’s head and murder weapon—remains missing
The Crime That Fractured a Blended Family
In August 2023, Henderson police discovered Johnathan Willette’s body in his own home. The 47-year-old man had been decapitated. His head was never recovered. What emerged from the investigation was not a straightforward domestic murder but a tangled web of family relationships so convoluted that it challenges basic assumptions about who benefits from whose death. Willette had fathered two children with Devyn Michaels during their romantic relationship. Years later, Michaels entered into a relationship with Deviere Willette, Johnathan’s son from a previous marriage, and eventually married him. This created an unprecedented family structure: Michaels became simultaneously the ex-partner of the father and the spouse of the son.
Why She Withdrew Her Plea
In 2024, facing what appeared to be an insurmountable prosecution case, Michaels accepted a plea deal and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The decision seemed pragmatic—a way to avoid a potential life sentence. But something shifted. In summer 2025, Michaels made a dramatic reversal, withdrawing her guilty plea and announcing her intention to proceed to trial. She issued a public statement that revealed both defiance and desperation: “I know right now no one in the family is going to believe me. I know right now no one in the family feels that I am innocent at any point, and I understand that, but I can actually prove my innocence. I actually can. And I’m not going to stop fighting to prove my innocence.”
This reversal transformed the case from a closed matter into an ongoing trial that forces prosecutors to build their entire case on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution’s theory rests on motive: Michaels murdered Willette because his planned move into her Las Vegas home threatened the domestic life she had established with her current husband. Prosecutor John Giordani framed it starkly to jurors: “This is the future that she saw and that she wanted, and the only way to have that future was with John out of the picture.”
The Defense’s Explosive Counter-Theory
Devyn Michaels’ defense attorney, Robert Draskovich, presented jurors with a radically different narrative. Rather than accepting the prosecution’s motive-based theory, the defense redirected attention toward Deviere Willette himself. The theory suggests that Deviere, not Michaels, murdered his own father—potentially driven by jealousy, resentment, or other motives—while Michaels became the convenient scapegoat. Draskovich’s instruction to jurors was direct: “Look at the motivations, and find her not guilty.” This strategy, while controversial, exploits a critical vulnerability in the prosecution’s case: Deviere Willette has never been charged or officially named as a suspect by law enforcement, despite the defense’s insinuation of his guilt.
The Missing Pieces That Define the Case
The prosecution faces an extraordinary evidentiary burden. Johnathan Willette’s head has never been recovered. The murder weapon remains missing. These absences create a prosecutorial nightmare: without the murder weapon, establishing the method of decapitation becomes difficult. Without the head, forensic evidence that might definitively link Michaels to the crime vanishes. The crime scene itself offered peculiar details—investigators noted a chemical smell and visible fumes emanating from Willette’s body, suggesting possible attempts to conceal or dispose of evidence. Whether this evidence points toward guilt or innocence depends entirely on how jurors interpret it.
Conflicting Statements and Reasonable Doubt
During initial interrogation, Michaels provided statements that prosecutors and defense attorneys interpret through fundamentally different lenses. She admitted hitting Willette’s head with a wooden stick and acknowledged that it was “very possible” she killed him without remembering the act. These admissions appear damaging to her defense, yet they also create ambiguity. Did Michaels confess to murder, or did she provide confused statements under pressure? The defense argues that her inconsistent statements reflect interrogation tactics rather than genuine guilt, a narrative that gains traction when jurors consider the complete absence of direct physical evidence linking her to the crime.
The Trial Unfolds in November 2025
As of November 2025, the trial entered its active jury phase with testimony from law enforcement investigators. Court proceedings conducted between November 11 and 14, 2025, focused on crime scene discovery and evidence collection. Investigators testified about finding Johnathan Willette’s cell phone on the driveway, reportedly discovered by Willette’s own mother. This detail raises questions about evidence handling and chain of custody—questions that defense attorneys exploit to suggest investigative incompetence or bias. Each witness testimony becomes another opportunity for the jury to weigh competing narratives and assess the credibility of the state’s circumstantial case.
What Hangs in the Balance
The trial’s outcome will determine not only Devyn Michaels’ freedom but also whether Deviere Willette faces any legal consequences or remains protected by law enforcement’s apparent focus on his stepmother. The two children of Michaels and Johnathan Willette—the biological children at the heart of this fractured family—have already lost their father and now face the possibility of losing their mother to conviction or gaining her freedom through acquittal. The jury’s verdict will answer a question that has haunted this case since August 2023: who actually killed Johnathan Willette, and did prosecutors charge the right person?
Sources:
CBS Austin – Adult Film Actress Accused of Beheading Ex After Marrying Stepson
