Ricks v. State
301 Ga. 171
Ga.2017Background
- Otis Ricks (death-penalty case) challenged Fulton County’s method of producing trial venires, arguing the county’s vendor-manipulated jury lists violated the Georgia Jury Composition Rule implementing the Jury Composition Reform Act.
- The Clerks Council is statutorily charged with preparing annual county master jury lists (DDS and voter records), purging duplicates, deceased/felon/incompetent records, and screening undeliverable addresses using detailed rule-specified protocols.
- Fulton County’s vendor merged the Council’s master list with the county’s legacy data, added names, and inactivated large numbers of Council-provided records (2013: ~130,958 inactivated; 2014: ~154,207 inactivated), often for legacy or unspecified reasons.
- Local Fulton orders (drawn from a temporary prior rule) authorized merging/flagging; the vendor had not been provided the current Rule and used its own unspecified duplicate and NCOA procedures.
- Trial court denied Ricks’s motions after two hearings, finding local maintenance/flagging permissible; the Georgia Supreme Court granted interim review and reversed, directing compliance with the Rule for Ricks’s venire.
Issues
| Issue | Ricks's Argument | State/Fulton Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fulton County’s vendor may add names to the Clerks Council’s county master jury list | Vendor additions (legacy data) improperly alter the Council’s list and reduce inclusiveness; unlawful under Rule | Local management order permits merging and promoting most recent records; additions aid accuracy | County may not add names to Council lists; additions violated Rule — reversed |
| Whether county may inactivate/delete names from Council lists based on legacy flags or local duplicate-detection | Legacy inactivations remove eligible jurors and bypass Council purging protocols; only Clerks Council may purge under Rule | Labeling as "inactivated" (not deleted) and local clerk authority over excusals/deferrals justifies practice | Inactivation that effectively removes names is equivalent to deletion and violates Rule when done outside Council process — reversed |
| Whether counties may run local duplicate removal or NCOA-driven undeliverable-address purges on Council lists | Local automated duplicate/NCOA screening conflicts with Rule’s exclusive technical methods delegated to Council and risks inconsistent, improper removals | Local maintenance is necessary given mobility and overinclusiveness; Paragraph 6 permits local inactivation | Counties may not perform wholesale local duplicate purges or automated NCOA screening; those functions belong to Council — reversed |
| Scope of local clerk authority under Paragraph 6 (excuse/defer/inactivate) | Paragraph 6 is limited to jurors known ineligible per OCGA §15-12-1.1 and temporary management; it does not authorize multi-year legacy purges | Paragraph 6 and local orders give flexibility to manage lists and reduce duplicate summonses | Paragraph 6 is limited; permanent inactivations for reasons not newly verified since county exception list submission are impermissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 735 (discussed historical forced-balancing problems)
- Ellington v. State, 292 Ga. 109 (noting supersession by the Act)
- Turner v. State, 268 Ga. 213 (recommendation for pretrial victim-impact hearing)
- Martin v. State, 298 Ga. 259 (examples of objectionable victim-impact testimony)
- Bryant v. State, 288 Ga. 876 (reversal for improper victim-impact testimony)
- Owens v. Hill, 295 Ga. 302 (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- Hopkins v. Hamby Corp., 273 Ga. 19 (mootness exception for recurring public-interest issues)
- Young v. State, 290 Ga. 392 (jury-list error precedents)
- Cobb v. State, 244 Ga. 344 (jury-list and related error principles)
- Rosser v. State, 284 Ga. 335 (procedural standards cited)
- Pulliam v. Balkcom, 245 Ga. 99 (procedural standards cited)