Jury court – Trial Jury http://trial-jury.org/ Wed, 28 Sep 2022 01:31:54 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://trial-jury.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/cropped-icon-32x32.png Jury court – Trial Jury http://trial-jury.org/ 32 32 Former lawmaker files notice of appeal to Idaho Supreme Court in rape case https://trial-jury.org/former-lawmaker-files-notice-of-appeal-to-idaho-supreme-court-in-rape-case/ Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:00:06 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/former-lawmaker-files-notice-of-appeal-to-idaho-supreme-court-in-rape-case/

Less than a month after being sentenced to at least eight years in prison for rape, former Idaho lawmaker Aaron von Ehlinger filed an appeal with the Idaho Supreme Court, alleging that the fourth court of Ada County District had made several errors during his trial and sentencing.

A jury found von Ehlinger guilty of the crime of rape on April 29 and he has been incarcerated since that date. He was charged with the crime after a 19-year-old legislative internwho is called Jane Doe to protect her identity, said von Ehlinger, then 39, took her to dinner in early March 2021 and then back to her apartment, where she said he forced her to practice oral sex and had inserted his fingers inside her without her consent.

Judge Michael Reardon added a possible additional 12 years to von Ehlinger’s sentence for a total of 20 years.

In the notice of appeal, von Ehlinger’s attorney, Jon Cox, said the court should not have allowed the state to introduce evidence from a sexual assault nurse, and that the court should have had to immediately declare a mistrial when Doe took the stand, then abruptly left the courtroom, saying she couldn’t bring herself to testify. Reardon asked Cox if he wanted to seek a mistrial after Doe left the stand and he refused.

Cox also said the court should have granted von Ehlinger’s request for a new trial and said Reardon abused the court’s discretion by imposing a 20-year sentence with eight years fixed.

Under Idaho law, anyone found guilty in a trial can appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court. A defendant must file a notice of appeal within 42 days of a judgment or order, and transcripts of court proceedings are produced before the person filing the appeal submits a full statement explaining why the decision should be cancelled.

Von Ehlinger’s attorney has also filed a motion to have the costs of producing the transcripts waived and paid at public expense, since von Ehlinger has been incarcerated since April and has no way to pay it.

Cox also asked the court to appoint a public defender on appeal for von Ehlinger’s case, saying he owed a balance to Cox’s law firm that he was unable to pay and would have to have a public defender moving forward.

Idaho Supreme Court spokesman Nate Poppino said a full appeal will be filed with the court at a later date, when it will be assigned to an appeals court.

Get morning headlines delivered to your inbox

Goble sentenced in federal court | New https://trial-jury.org/goble-sentenced-in-federal-court-new/ Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/goble-sentenced-in-federal-court-new/

FRANKFURT — Former Scott County coroner John Goble was sentenced in federal court on Friday to two years probation, only after serving a year of house arrest. Goble is also liable for $10,000 in fines.

Goble’s sentence was set by U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove in an Eastern District of Kentucky courtroom located in Frankfort. A recommended sentence was between six and 12 months, but federal prosecutors Kate Smith and Kenneth Taylor, along with Van Tatenhove, determined that an indicative sentence for house arrest would be better served due to Goble’s health issues. .

High Crime Rate Leads Court To Impose Long Sentence For Double Murder Convict | New https://trial-jury.org/high-crime-rate-leads-court-to-impose-long-sentence-for-double-murder-convict-new/ Sun, 25 Sep 2022 05:10:58 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/high-crime-rate-leads-court-to-impose-long-sentence-for-double-murder-convict-new/

The crime crisis facing Jamaica has angered some judges so much that they tossed the book on a double murder convict, imposing the maximum sentence.

In July, the Court of Appeal ordered that Rayon Williams must serve 45 years before being eligible for parole for his second murder conviction.

“There must be tough sentences for convicted murderers who use guns to kill and have no respect for the lives of others,” a judge said. The Sunday Gleaner Last week.

Another judge said that once there were no mitigating factors, long sentences should be imposed.

But barrister John Clarke, who represents Williams on appeal, said he is taking the matter to the UK Privy Council, Jamaica’s final court of appeal, because he believes there have been highly unusual events in the two cases involving his client.

Clarke pointed out that the second case should have been remanded for trial by a jury based on new evidence presented on appeal. He also revealed that the judge who convicted Williams in his second trial was later appointed to the Court of Appeal and that judge sat on Williams’ appeal against his first conviction, which would not have should not have happened.

The attorney noted that the murders, which took place in September 2009 and December 2010, had the same eyewitness testifying in both cases.

In its decision on the matter, the Court of Appeal said that it considered that there was an element of premeditation and that an illegal firearm had been used in the commission of the offence. The court found that the offense itself was an act of extreme violence and referred to the gratuitousness of the killing.

“We identified two aggravating factors: the prevalence of gun crime in general and gun murder in particular, and a prior murder conviction. These factors would add 15 years to the theoretical sentence, which would give a period of 50 years before parole eligibility,” the court noted.

“Similarly, we have identified the appellant’s age (just under 28), his gainful employment at the time of his arrest and a dependent as mitigating factors. We assigned them the arithmetic value of five years, thus reducing the period to be served before eligibility for parole to 45 years.

The sentence is deemed to have started on June 26, 2014 and must run at the same time as the other sentence being executed.

Williams was first convicted by a jury in March 2013 of the murder of Hugh Cover in Spanish Town, St Catherine, in September 2009. After Cover was beaten by men and punched in the head, Williams used a sword to slit Cover’s throat while he “laid flattering on the floor like a fowl”, the witness said.

The witness further testified that Williams ordered one of the men “to finish removing the head” and that it was done.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve 35 years before he could be granted parole. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence and ruled in May 2017 that the sentence should run from March 27, 2013.


In the second case, Williams was convicted by a jury in June 2014 of the murder of Geraldo Campbell, who was shot and killed in his Oxford Road shop in Spanish Town, St Catherine, on December 18, 2010.

It was admitted at trial that the eyewitness and the appellant knew each other and had last spoken to each other the day before the incident.

The witness said that on the night of the incident, she saw Williams and a man named Maragh walking together. Williams went to the store and fired two shots before leaving with Maragh.

Williams gave an unsworn statement that the witness accused him of stealing his gun. He called a relative who supported the unsworn statement that the witness was telling lies that he had committed the offence.

The parent said she and the witness were together when they heard explosions and both went to the store. The relative said the witness had asked him some time before to find out from Williams if he had taken his gun.

Williams had sought to produce new evidence for the hearing of his appeal on dates from October to December 2021, on the grounds that false evidence had been given at his trial by the eyewitness.

In the recanting affidavit, the only eyewitness who testified at both trials claimed that her testimony at the second trial was false and that she was instigated by the police who put her “under a lot of pressure”.

She said she wanted to “empty her mind and be at peace with God” because she had given her life to Jesus Christ and asked for his forgiveness.

The witness testified in her October 30, 2018 affidavit that she did not write the story letter that was entered into evidence, but was coerced into signing it. She stated, among other things, that she was writing on behalf of the appellant, whom she had sent to prison for two life terms. She said a policeman told her to say the caller had fired because he was a sector chief and they wanted to get him off the street. The police promised to set up a “big bond” for her.

She admitted making the false statement because she was afraid of the police, because they had killed her two sons, and she feared they would harm her.

She explained that she had to move to various addresses after the trial because threats had been made against her by people who insisted that she reconsider her testimony.

Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn, KC, and prosecutors Tamara Merchant, Camelia Larmond and Cindi-Kay Graham disputed the witness’s alleged recantation. The Crown presented its own new evidence contained in an affidavit filed by the witness on October 20, 2021 in which she says she was threatened.

The witness, in her oral testimony before the Court of Appeal, said that she recanted because of threats, but that the testimony she gave at trial was true. She said the caller had her phone conversation with a member of the St Catherine-based One Order Gang during a three-way chat, and that she was threatened with violence and death if she did not follow their instructions .

Llewellyn argued that the contents of the repudiation documents supported the claim that the witness was coerced and threatened by agents of the appellant to recant.

There were challenges to the handwritten letter. The Crown handwriting expert said the letter was not written or signed by the witness; so it was a fake. The appellant’s handwriting expert, however, testified that the signatures on the letter were authentically those of the witness.

The Court of Appeal said the witness, in her oral testimony, contradicted herself when the court asked her if she had signed the letter and stated that she “did not write, sign or nothing to do with it”.

A justice of the peace said the witness signed the letter in his presence. The court said he believed she had done so, “there was no valid reason why she had not signed it, in his presence”.


Commenting on the handwriting issue, the court said: ‘It should be noted that both experts concluded that there was tracing or overwriting in relation to the handwritten letter. They both agreed that crushing goes to intent. In the opinion of the Crown’s expert, this was the intention of the forger, whereas, in the opinion of the appellant’s expert, it was the intention of the witness. On the contrary, the conflicts in the conclusions of the two experts are so profound that we prefer to consider their testimonies in the context of all the other evidence.

Clarke maintained that there was no satisfactory explanation from the witness for his delay in reporting the alleged threats until about six years later.

He said the new Crown evidence was contrived and further affected the credibility of the witness and the reliability of his testimony.

The court ruled that after hearing the testimony of the eyewitness and that of several other witnesses, “we are of the opinion that the alleged presentation is incapable of belief. The witness’s testimony supported the evidence in the repudiation papers that she was forced to recant due to intimidation and the threat of personal violence against her. The integrity of the new evidence was also compromised by inconsistencies in the supporting evidence”.

The court’s decision was that there was no credible evidence to refute the witness’ assertion “that the evidence she gave against the appellant at trial was the truth, we believe the new evidence of the appellant is unable to believe and that his admission is not necessary or expedient in the interests of justice”.

The court added that the additional new evidence did not support a conclusion that the retraction was voluntary, genuine and trustworthy.


Unanimous decision-making is essential to preserve the legitimacy of the Supreme Court https://trial-jury.org/unanimous-decision-making-is-essential-to-preserve-the-legitimacy-of-the-supreme-court/ Sat, 24 Sep 2022 20:00:00 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/unanimous-decision-making-is-essential-to-preserve-the-legitimacy-of-the-supreme-court/

After the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion rejecting abortion rights, public confidence in the Court has sunk to its lowest level in 50 years. And with additional controversial rulings on guns and climate change, concerns about the Court’s legitimacy have grown. For more and more people, judges function as political partisans rather than neutral arbiters.

Although Chief Justice John Roberts has argued that disagreeing with judges’ rulings should not undermine the Court’s legitimacy, he must do more. As he contemplates the damage to the Court’s reputation, Roberts would do well to follow the example of one of his most influential predecessors, Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall came to court in 1801 at another time when the court’s legitimacy was at an all-time low.

During its early years, the court had followed the British practice of each judge writing a separate opinion. But that approach has made it difficult for lawyers, lower court judges and the public to know what the court actually withheld. As Mr. Todd Henderson, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote, this resulted in “a weak and divided Court unable to assert any real authority”.

Chief Justice Marshall instituted a single opinion policy for the court, so that the judges could speak with a unified voice. During Marshall’s first four years as leader, all court opinions were issued for the Court as a whole, with one concurring opinion and no dissenting opinions. During this important period, the court decided Marbury v. Madison, establishing judicial supremacy over the interpretation of the Constitution. The court’s consensus standard lasted until 1941, and during the 140 years the court unanimously decided more than 90% of its cases.

Reviving the practice of unanimous decisions – and requiring it for all cases – would do much to restore the court’s legitimacy. When national policy on critical issues like abortion, gun control and climate change can be decided by a majority of courts, the losing side can easily feel that decisions are based on ideology rather than legal principles. This is an important reason why the court has in the past favored consensual decisions. Perhaps the most famous example occurred in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka when the Court ruled that the separate schools violated the Equal Protection Clause by a 9-0 vote. While the Court could have decided the case with a 6-3 majority, the judges recognized the importance of unanimity in landmark cases and therefore scheduled a re-hearing of the case to secure the support of all nine judges.

It is not surprising that unanimous decisions reinforce the legitimacy of a tribunal. The example of the jury is illustrative. When judicial decisions are made by juries, the Supreme Court has generally required consensus. Judges have required unanimous jury decisions in both federal and state criminal cases, and they have also required unanimity of jurors in federal civil cases.

In requiring unanimous juries, the court identified some key considerations that bolster judicial legitimacy. We should ensure that a cross-section of the community participates in the decision-making process, and the members of the jury should reach a consensus decision after careful deliberation. These considerations also apply to decisions of the Supreme Court. It is important to have judges with a range of backgrounds and ideological perspectives who reach a consensus decision after careful deliberation.

When people with different perspectives come together for a thoughtful and reasoned exchange of ideas and arguments, they become more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of others’ opinions, as well as their own opinions. As a result, they make better decisions.

Empirical studies on decision-making come to the same conclusion. When people with different perspectives make decisions together, they can identify solutions that none of them acting alone would have recognized. Their different ideas can combine to identify new approaches. So, rather than just dividing their differences, they can discover win-win outcomes that improve the overall results.

And unanimous decisions are fairer decisions. Because Supreme Court decisions reflect the philosophical leanings of judges and decisions can be made by majority on one side of the ideological spectrum, our court system denies an impartial hearing to parties on the other side of the ideological spectrum. . This is fundamentally unfair in a constitutional system that promises litigants a neutral judicial process.

As Brownschool’s integration decision indicates, a unanimous court will always make groundbreaking decisions. The court also voted unanimously when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, recognized the right to counsel for the defendants in Gideon v. Wainwright and limited presidential executive privilege in United States v. Nixon..

We don’t have to worry about clogging up a unanimity requirement. As mentioned, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously more than 90% of the time by its consensus standard, even when it was not required to, and Europe’s high courts operate effectively today by a consensus standard. . This experience reflects the fact that there will always be a common ground on which the majority and the minority can settle.

In addition, the court has an obligation to resolve critical legal issues and we can expect judges to perform the duties of their position. As Judge Elena Kagan observed when the court had a 4-4 ideological split between the death of Judge Antonin Scalia and the appointment of Judge Neil Gorsuch in 2016-17, judges had a greater need to find common ground. agreement, and they worked harder to make it happen. Judges would also have a strong personal incentive to find common ground under a requirement of unanimity – their desire to leave an important judicial legacy. Reaching consensus would allow them to make a difference in resolving major legal issues.

While the Supreme Court’s practice of deciding cases by majority may seem natural, it lacks any basis in legal principle or empirical value. With unanimous decision-making, the Supreme Court would make better decisions and do so impartially. And it’s key to preserving the court’s legitimacy when deciding critical issues like reproductive rights, public safety and climate change.

David Orentlicher, MD, JD, is Justice Jack and Lulu Lehman Professor and Director of UNLV’s Health Law Program.

Former clerk appears in Prince William County court on bribery charges https://trial-jury.org/former-clerk-appears-in-prince-william-county-court-on-bribery-charges/ Sat, 24 Sep 2022 15:06:04 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/former-clerk-appears-in-prince-william-county-court-on-bribery-charges/ A Prince William County judge has reprimanded former registrar Michele White for not yet hiring a lawyer to face corruption charges.

This article was written by InsideNoVa.com, WTOP’s press partner, and republished with permission. Sign up for InsideNoVa.com’s free email subscription today.

A Prince William County judge has reprimanded former registrar Michele White for not yet hiring a lawyer to face corruption charges.

White appeared in Prince William County Circuit Court on Friday for a hearing on the status of his legal counsel.

White was indicted by a grand jury earlier this month on three counts: corrupt conduct as an election official and willful breach of duty as an election official between August 1 and December 31, 2020 and having made a false statement by an election official between November 3 and November 10, 2020.

White is free on a personal recognizance, meaning she was released with a promise to appear at all court proceedings.

No details have been released about the allegations. The grand jury indictments only list the crimes with which White is charged and do not provide additional information about the case.

White, Senior Assistant Attorney General Josh Lief and Assistant Attorney General James Herring declined to comment on the case after the hearing.

Judge Carroll Weimer Jr. asked White if she had ever hired an attorney, and White said she needed more time. She asked for a December or January delay.

Weimer replied, “We’re not going to do that.”

“I have to settle this matter,” he said. “A few more weeks maybe, but I’m not waiting months.”

Weimer initially said White would have two weeks to hire a lawyer, but planning set his next court date for 9 a.m. on October 21.

Weimer provided White with a form to sign stating that she has the right to a public defender if she cannot afford an attorney. He said if she continued to appear without a lawyer, it could be seen as a waiver of her right to counsel.

“We’ll work with you a bit, but this case needs to be listed and tried,” he said.

The county registrar’s office said White’s conduct had no bearing on the election outcome, but did not comment on specific allegations.

White held the position from February 2015 until his resignation in April 2021. Current Registrar Eric Olsen took office on November 8.

White faces between three and 21 years cumulatively on the charges, plus a fine of up to $7,500.

Judge bans cameras from Idaho mother’s triple murder case https://trial-jury.org/judge-bans-cameras-from-idaho-mothers-triple-murder-case/ Sat, 24 Sep 2022 01:24:10 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/judge-bans-cameras-from-idaho-mothers-triple-murder-case/

By REBECCA BOONE Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho judge has banned courtroom cameras in the high-profile triple murder case against a mother and her new husband, saying he fears the footage will prevent a fair trial.

Seventh District Judge Steven Boyce issued the ruling on Friday, saying news outlets would no longer be able to take photos or video inside the courtroom in the criminal case of Lori Vallow Daybell and Chad Daybell. The couple are accused of conspiring to kill the two youngest children of Lori Vallow Daybell and the late ex-wife of Chad Daybell, and the bizarre details of the case have drawn worldwide attention.

FILE – Lori Vallow Daybell, center, sits between her attorneys for a hearing at the Fremont County Courthouse in St. Anthony, Idaho, August 16, 2022. An Idaho judge has banned cameras from the courtroom courtroom in the high-profile triple murder case against a mother and her new husband, saying he feared the footage would impede a fair trial. Lori Vallow Daybell and her new husband Chad Daybell are accused of conspiring to kill his two children and his late wife. (Tony Blakeslee/East Idaho News via AP, Pool, File)

Vallow Daybell and Daybell both pleaded not guilty to the charges, which carry a potential death penalty.

Late last month, lawyers for Vallow Daybell asked the judge to ban cameras from the courtroom. They argued that a news agency abused that privilege by repeatedly zooming in on Vallow Daybell’s face during an August 16 hearing. The lawyers, Jim Archibald and John Thomas, also claimed that the cameras and microphones could potentially be used to overhear private conversations or to display private notes on the defense table, although they did not suggest that the equipment has ever been used in this manner.

A coalition of more than 30 news agencies, including the Associated Press, asked the judge to dismiss the defense attorneys’ motion.

Steve Wright, the attorney for the EastIdahoNews.com-run news coalition, told the judge that banning the cameras would not stop widespread public interest in the case, but rather prevent people from seeing the performance. the most accurate of the procedure. News agencies also noted that the coverage was done to inform members of the public, most of whom cannot attend in person.

Wright told the judge that banning the cameras altogether would be a “vast overreaction,” but acknowledged the judge had the power to limit visual coverage as he saw fit.

The prosecutor handling the case, meanwhile, sided with the defense and said cameras should be banned. Lawyer Rob Wood said media coverage could make it difficult for the court to find an impartial jury when the case goes to trial next year.

In his ruling, Boyce said there was no evidence that news outlets ever violated court orders allowing cameras in the courtroom.

“The presence of the media during the hearings in no way interrupted these proceedings, and the media present were respectful and professional,” Boyce wrote in the decision. Still, the judge said, the concerns raised by defense attorneys are “well-founded.”

Boyce said he had to proactively avoid watching media coverage of the case because it was a regular part of local and sometimes national news. He noted that he had already decided to move the trial across the state to Ada County in hopes of improving the odds of finding impartial jurors.

He said the camera ban would continue even after jurors are selected for the trial – although jurors are still warned not to discuss or consume media coverage of the case they are working on. Visual media coverage could also taint potential witnesses and stress attorneys involved in the case, he said, “knowing that their every expression, word and appearance will be captured and broadcast without their control in perpetuity.”

This pressure could interfere with the “fair administration of justice,” Boyce said.

FILE – Chad Daybell sits during a court hearing Aug. 4, 2020 in St. Anthony, Idaho. An Idaho judge has banned courtroom cameras in the high-profile triple murder case against a mother and her new husband, saying he fears the footage could impede a fair trial. Lori Vallow Daybell and her new husband Chad Daybell are accused of conspiring to kill his two children and his late wife. (John Roark/The Idaho Post-Register via AP, Pool, File)

Idaho law enforcement officers began investigating Lori Vallow Daybell and Chad Daybell in November 2019 after extended family members reported that her two youngest children, Joshua “JJ” Vallow and Tylee Ryan, were missing. At the time, JJ Vallow was 7 years old and Tylee Ryan was approaching his 17th birthday.

Chad and Lori Vallow Daybell were married just two weeks after the unexpected death of his previous wife, Tammy Daybell. The children’s bodies were later found buried on the property of Chad Daybell in rural eastern Idaho.

The couple were eventually charged with murder, conspiracy and grand larceny in connection with the deaths of Daybell’s children and late wife. They have pleaded not guilty and face the death penalty if found guilty.

Prosecutors say the couple promoted unusual religious beliefs to advance alleged murder plots. Lori Vallow Daybell’s former husband, who died while the two were separated, said in divorce papers that Vallow Daybell believed she was a divine figure responsible for ushering in the apocalyptic end times. Chad Daybell has written apocalypse-focused fiction books and recorded podcasts about preparing for the apocalypse.

Friends of the couple told law enforcement investigators that the couple believed people could be taken over by dark spirits and that Vallow Daybell referred to their children as “zombies”, a term they used to describe those who were possessed.

Vallow Daybell is also charged with conspiracy to commit murder in Arizona in connection with the death of her former husband. Charles Vallow was shot dead by Lori Daybell’s brother, Alex Cox, who said it was self-defense. Cox later died of what police said were natural causes.

Court proceedings in Arizona are on hold while the Idaho case is pending, and Vallow Daybell is not scheduled to appear in the Arizona case.

Alabama asks the Supreme Court of the United States to allow it to carry out the execution https://trial-jury.org/alabama-asks-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-to-allow-it-to-carry-out-the-execution/ Fri, 23 Sep 2022 07:07:30 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/alabama-asks-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-to-allow-it-to-carry-out-the-execution/

ATMORE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama officials canceled Thursday’s lethal injection of a man convicted in a 1999 workplace shooting because of timing issues and difficulty accessing the inmate’s veins.

Alabama Corrections Commissioner John Hamm said the state halted the scheduled execution of Alan Miller after determining he could not initiate the lethal injection by the midnight deadline. Prison officials made the decision around 11:30 p.m. The last-minute stay came nearly three hours after a divided US Supreme Court cleared the way for the execution to begin.

“Due to time constraints resulting from the delay in the court proceedings, the execution was canceled once it was determined that the convicted inmate’s veins could not be viewed in accordance with our protocol prior to the expiration of the execution. ‘death sentence,’ Hamm said.

Hamm said “accessing the veins was taking a little longer than expected.” He didn’t know how long the team had been trying to make a connection, but noted that there were a number of procedures to follow before the team started trying to connect the IV line.

Miller was returned to his usual cell in a southern Alabama prison.

The aborted execution came after the state’s execution of Joe Nathan James in July took more than three hours to start after the state had difficulty establishing an IV line, leading to accusations that the execution had been botched.

Miller, 57, has been sentenced to death after being convicted of a 1999 workplace rampage in which he killed Terry Jarvis, Lee Holdbrooks and Scott Yancy.

“Despite the circumstances that led to the cancellation of this execution, nothing will change the fact that a jury heard the evidence in this case and made a decision,” Alabama Governor Kay Ivey said in a statement. a statement. She added that three families are still alive. in mourning.

“We all know full well that Michael Holdbrooks, Terry Lee Jarvis and Christopher Scott Yancey did not choose to die by gunshot to the chest. Tonight my prayers are with the families and loved ones of the victims as they are forced to continue to relive the pain of their loss,” Ivey said.

An anti-death penalty group said the situation with Miller’s attempted lethal injection resembled other “botched” executions.

“It’s hard to see how they can persist with this broken method of execution that keeps going disastrously, over and over again. In its desperation to execute, Alabama is experimenting on prisoners behind closed doors – surely the definition of cruel and unusual punishment,” Maya Foa, director of the Reprieve US Forensic Justice Initiative, a human rights group opposed to the death penalty, said in a statement.

Prosecutors said Miller, a delivery truck driver, killed fellow Holdbrooks and Yancy at a business in suburban Birmingham and then left to shoot former supervisor Jarvis at a business where Miller previously worked. Each man was shot multiple times, and Miller was captured after a freeway chase.

Testimony at trial indicated that Miller believed the men were spreading rumors about him, including that he was gay. A psychiatrist hired by the defense found that Miller suffered from severe mental illness and delusions, but also said that Miller’s condition was not serious enough to form the basis of an insanity defense under state law.

The judges in a 5-4 decision lifted an injunction – issued by a federal judge and left in place by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals – that had prevented Miller’s execution from going ahead. Miller’s attorneys said the state had lost the documents asking for his execution to be carried out by nitrogen hypoxia, a method legally available to him but never used before in the United States.

When Alabama approved nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution in 2018, state law gave inmates a brief window to designate it as their method of execution. Miller testified that he handed over documents four years ago by choosing nitrogen hypoxia as his method of execution, placing the documents through a slot in his cell door at Holman Correctional Facility for a prison employee to pick them up.

U.S. District Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr. issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday restraining the state from killing Miller by any means other than nitrogen hypoxia after finding it “substantially probable” that Miller “submitted a timely election form even though the state says it has no physical record of a form.

Nitrogen hypoxia is a proposed method of execution in which death would be caused by forcing the inmate to breathe only nitrogen, depriving them of the oxygen needed to maintain bodily functions. Nitrogen hypoxia is authorized for executions in three states, but none have attempted to put an inmate to death using this method. Alabama officials told the judge they were working to finalize the protocol.

Many states have struggled to buy enforcement drugs in recent years after US and European pharmaceutical companies began blocking the use of their products in lethal injections. This has led some to look for alternative methods.


This story has been corrected to show Alabama’s last execution was in July.

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Court finds Washington County foreclosure lawsuit requires full hearing https://trial-jury.org/court-finds-washington-county-foreclosure-lawsuit-requires-full-hearing/ Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:07:38 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/court-finds-washington-county-foreclosure-lawsuit-requires-full-hearing/

The Arkansas Court of Appeals overturned and dismissed a foreclosure case on Thursday, saying a Washington County circuit judge should have reviewed a couple’s claims that they signed agreements under duress and that the actions of a bank had prevented them from repaying their loans.

The case involves many interrelated parties and entities and involves several loans, but the main players are Jacob and Paige Levitt, who appealed, and Today’s Bank, which seized their loans. The Levitts lost their business and home in foreclosures and bankruptcy actions.

The appeals court said Judge John Threet erred in granting summary judgment to the bank. The court said Threet should have looked at evidence the couple entered into a loan modification under duress, which could void the contract.

Jacob Levitt said in his affidavit that he was threatened by bank officials with civil and criminal lawsuits if the Levitts did not immediately place their home as collateral. The Levitts also alleged that the bank threatened to file a foreclosure suit if it refused to change the terms of the loan.

“We believe the circuit court erred in finding that the facts were not sufficient to constitute duress or at least in finding that there was no dispute of material fact,” the court said. call. “Here, the evidence in support of the Levitts’ coercion claim was sufficient to raise material factual issues to survive summary judgment.”

The Levitts presented evidence that they only agreed to the loan modification after the bank threatened to bring criminal charges against them for the misrepresentations in a collateral agreement for a loan. They also said they were worried the bank would recall their note and foreclose on their home, the opinion said.

The bank’s claims that Levitts ratified the contract while remaining silent about the alleged duress until the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings are a matter for a jury to decide, the opinion says.

Likewise, the bank’s argument that the Levitts were not harmed by the modification of the loan but in fact benefited from its conversion to a traditional loan is open to interpretation and remains a question of fact to be decided by a jury. , according to the opinion.

Finally, the appeals court said the Levitts presented evidence that the bank failed to transfer the titles to the trailers the Levitts used in their business, resulting in the trailers being repossessed. The loss of the trailers devastated their business, resulting in an inability to repay their loans, the couple claimed. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the bank’s actions prevented the Levitts from performing the contracts.


Davidson County murder suspects Corbett and Martens in court

Court continues for suspects in murder of Jason Corbett, killed at his Davidson County home

Molly Corbett and her father Thomas Martens, charged with the murder of Jason Corbett more than nine years ago, will stand trial for the second time next year. A preliminary hearing was held this morning in Davidson County. A judge announced that jury selection will begin on June 26 next year. In 2020, the state appeals court threw out Corbett and Martens’ second-degree murder convictions in the death of Corebett’s husband, Jason, citing evidentiary issues at the initial trial. Jason Corbett was killed in his Davidson County Home in 2015. Corbett and Martens claim self-defense.

Molly Corbett and her father Thomas Martens, charged with the murder of Jason Corbett more than nine years ago, will stand trial for the second time next year.

A preliminary hearing was held this morning in Davidson County.

A judge has announced that jury selection will begin on June 26 next year.

In 2020, the state appeals court threw out Corbett and Martens’ second-degree murder convictions in the death of Corebett’s husband, Jason, citing evidentiary issues at the initial trial.

Jason Corbett was killed at his Davidson County home in 2015.

Corbett and Martens claim self-defense.

Georgia man sentenced to 10 years in prison for teenage girl’s road death https://trial-jury.org/georgia-man-sentenced-to-10-years-in-prison-for-teenage-girls-road-death/ Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:53:53 +0000 https://trial-jury.org/georgia-man-sentenced-to-10-years-in-prison-for-teenage-girls-road-death/

STATESBORO, Ga. (AP) — A biracial man who says he was repelling a racist attack on a Georgia highway when he fired a gun at a moving van and killed a teenage passenger was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years in prison.

A judge has imposed the maximum prison sentence on Marc Wilson, 23, who was convicted of manslaughter last month by a Bulloch County jury in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Haley Hutcheson. Prosecutors had unsuccessfully sought a murder conviction.

Wilson’s lawyers insisted at his trial in August that the shooting was justified in self-defense when the van driver tried to run Wilson’s car off the road during the summer of 2020. Prosecutors argued that Wilson had no legal basis for shooting a handgun in traffic and could have escaped if he had been harassed by another driver.

Superior Court Judge Ronnie Thompson denied clemency requests from Wilson’s attorneys, who noted that he had no prior criminal record. The judge said Wilson will receive credit for the 20 months he has already served in prison awaiting trial, media reported.

Defense attorneys have acknowledged that Wilson fired the shot that killed Hutcheson, of Reidsville, on a bypass surrounding the town of Statesboro in southeast Georgia on the night of June 24, 2020. The One of the bullets he fired pierced the rear window of the truck and hit Hutcheson in the head. . She died after her friends rushed her to hospital.

Wilson surrendered and surrendered his gun to police three days after the shooting.

Prosecutors had charged Wilson with felony murder, arguing that he caused Hutcheson’s death by committing another crime – aggravated assault – by firing his gun at the truck. The jury acquitted Wilson of both charges and found him guilty of manslaughter.

FILE – This undated photo provided by the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office shows Marc Wilson, of Sharpsburg, Ga. Wilson was charged with killing a 17-year-old girl in a highway shooting after opening fire from his car in self-defense after the pickup truck in which the girl was a passenger tried to force him off the road, a defense attorney told a jury as his murder trial opened on Wednesday 24 August 2022. (Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office via AP, File)

If Wilson had been convicted of murder, he would have been automatically sentenced to life in prison.

Wilson – the son of a black father and a white mother – and his white girlfriend had just picked up food from a Taco Bell around 12:30 p.m. when the van pulled up next to the much larger Ford Focus small of Wilson. Wilson told police the van tried to run his car off the road as white teenagers inside shouted racial slurs.

The driver of the van and two passengers who took the witness stand denied threatening or otherwise provoking Wilson. They also admitted to drinking that night, but denied being drunk.

Emma Rigdon, Wilson’s girlfriend at the time, testified that she had not heard any racial slurs prior to the shooting. She recalled, however, being spooked when the van “started to swerve into our lane” and forced Wilson’s car onto the shoulder of the freeway.