Tamara Cotman v. State
342 Ga. App. 569
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Governor-ordered special investigation (2010) found widespread cheating on Georgia CRCTs across Atlanta Public Schools (APS); many teachers/administrators admitted to cheating. Special investigators and GBI conducted extensive interviews and erasure analyses.
- Dr. Beverly Hall’s administration imposed yearly "Targets" and AYP pressures tied to raises/bonuses; noncompliance prompted demotions, PDPs, or transfers.
- Tamara Cotman was SRT-4 Executive Director (2004–2011); multiple reports of cheating within her region were allegedly ignored or met with punitive responses to whistleblowers.
- Angela Williamson, a 4th‑grade teacher, was accused of providing answers to students, altering tests, and lying to investigators; GOSA erasure analyses flagged her classroom.
- Indictment (2013) charged 35 APS staff with crimes including conspiracy to violate Georgia RICO (OCGA §16‑14‑4(c)); Cotman and Williamson were convicted after a joint six‑month trial and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction: whether charging conjunctively but instructing jury disjunctively ("or") was error | State: OK to instruct that proof of either statutory subsection suffices because statute lists alternative means and jury charge may be adapted to evidence | Cotman/Williamson: instruction allowed conviction on a different theory than indicted and risked non‑unanimous verdict | Court: No error — when statute contains disjunctive means proof of any one suffices; court limited jury and required unanimity |
| Unanimity/fatal variance: did disjunctive instruction produce non‑unanimous verdict or fatal variance from indictment | State: indictment provided notice; disjunctive proof is permissible where statute permits alternative means | Defendants: instruction risked non‑unanimity and created fatal variance between indictment and proof | Court: No fatal variance; precedent allows conviction on any one of conjunctively pleaded alternative means; unanimity instruction given; Gipson distinguished; federal common‑law authorities favor upholding general verdicts |
| Sufficiency of evidence for RICO conspiracy (predicate acts and pattern) | State: evidence of multiple predicate acts (theft, false swearing, false statements) and pattern tied to Targets supports RICO conspiracy | Defendants: challenged variance/ sufficiency generally | Court: Evidence sufficient — pattern of racketeering and predicate acts proven; convictions supported |
| Sentencing: whether defendants should be sentenced under general conspiracy statute (half‑max) rather than RICO (§16‑14‑5) invoking rule of lenity | Defendants: ambiguity requires application of lenity and lesser general‑conspiracy sentencing formula | State: RICO contains specific sentencing provision applicable to convictions under §16‑14‑4; specific statute controls | Court: No lenity issue — specific RICO sentencing statute applies; sentences within §16‑14‑5 range |
| Double jeopardy (Cotman): whether prior acquittal on influencing‑witness charge barred later RICO prosecution | Cotman: substantive double jeopardy because earlier trial overlapped and arose from same conduct | State: influencing‑witness was separate statutory offense and was not a predicate alleged/relied upon in RICO trial | Court: Blockburger/required‑evidence test satisfied; offenses distinct; prior acquittal did not bar RICO prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. United States, 553 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1977) (discusses jury unanimity and risks of allowing jury to convict on different alternative acts)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (rejects overly rigid approach to verdict‑specificity among alternative theories)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (general jury verdict valid if legally supportable on any submitted ground)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (required‑evidence test for double jeopardy: each offense must require proof of an element the other does not)
- Cash v. State, 297 Ga. 859 (2015) (Georgia precedent holding indictment/charge may list alternative means conjunctively but proof of any one will suffice)