Jason Michael Osborn v. State of Alabama, CR-2023-0185

A jury convicted Jason Michael Osborn of capital murder for Ricardo Brown's death and recommended death by a 10-2 vote. 1
The State's case relied heavily on jailhouse informants who said Osborn confessed to killing Brown and disposing of the car used. 2
An autopsy later showed blunt-force injuries, including a depressed skull fracture, consistent with being struck by a pipe or hammer. 3
District Judge Shelly Waters presided over Osborn's February 2023 trial after a 2021 standing order and a 2022 reassignment order. 4
On appeal, Osborn challenged Judge Waters's authority and argued the prosecutor improperly commented on his silence during closing argument. 5
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding Judge Waters's assignment issue was defeated by the de facto officer doctrine but the prosecutor's remark was plain error. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Judge Waters properly assigned to preside? 7	Osborn said the assignment orders were unauthorized and expired.	The State said the assignment was valid under Rule 13 and § 12-9A-8.	Yes; Judge Waters was properly assigned. 8
If the assignment expired, did the de facto officer doctrine validate Waters's acts? 9	Osborn said de facto officer doctrine does not cure jurisdictional defects.	The State said Waters acted under color of office and her acts were valid.	Yes; the doctrine barred relief. 10
Was the prosecutor's remark a comment on Osborn's failure to testify? 11	Osborn said the remark told jurors only he could explain the killing.	The State said it was a permissible circumstantial-evidence argument.	Yes; it was a direct comment on silence. 12
Did the lack of a curative instruction make the comment plain error? 13	Osborn said no objection and no cure required reversal.	The State said no plain error occurred in context.	Yes; plain error required reversal. 14

Iervolino v. State, 402 So. 3d 844 (Ala. Crim. App. 2023) (plain-error review in death cases remains available 15)
Ex parte Files, 413 So. 3d 679 (Ala. 2024) (circuit courts have jurisdiction over felony prosecutions; judge assignment issues may implicate jurisdiction 16)
State ex rel. Locke v. Sweeney, 349 So. 2d 1147 (Ala. 1977) (temporary judicial assignments do not alter court jurisdiction 17)
Dean v. Dean, 295 So. 3d 82 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (de facto officer doctrine validated orders entered after an assignment gap 18)
State v. Gwin, 808 So. 2d 65 (Ala. 2001) (de facto judge's acts remained valid despite appointment irregularity and no objection 19)
Powell v. State, 631 So. 2d 289 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (prosecutor's similar comment was a direct reference to the defendant's silence 20)
Whitt v. State, 370 So. 2d 736 (Ala. 1979) (direct comments on a defendant's failure to testify require reversal absent prompt cure 21)
Ex parte Wilson, 571 So. 2d 1251 (Ala. 1990) (prosecutor's direct comment on silence plus no prompt cure mandated reversal 22)
Ex parte K.R., 210 So. 3d 1106 (Ala. 2016) (clerk lacked authority to appoint a temporary judge, creating a jurisdictional defect 23)
Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (U.S. 2003) (de facto officer doctrine usually covers merely technical defects, not statutory assignment violations 24)