811 S.E.2d 457
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- Anthony James Scott, a GSP trooper, was involved in a fatal collision while on duty; two occupants of the other vehicle died and two were seriously injured.
- Scott gave a recorded statement to GSP Sergeant Chad Barrow four days after the crash during an internal review; portions of the Miranda/rights portions on the form were crossed out.
- The State presented evidence to a Carroll County grand jury including Barrow’s testimony (which summarized Scott’s statements), a patrol dash-cam video, a diagram of the scene, and speed estimates derived from vehicle data and video.
- Scott was indicted for misdemeanor reckless driving and speeding; prior grand juries declined indictments on more serious counts.
- Scott moved to quash/dismiss, arguing his Garrity protections were violated because his interview was compelled by DPS policy and his statements were used before the grand jury; the trial court granted the motion.
- The State conceded Scott’s interview statements could not be used at trial but appealed the dismissal of the indictment, arguing the remaining grand jury evidence was sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of compelled Garrity-protected statements before the grand jury requires dismissal of the indictment | Scott: introduction of his compelled statements before the grand jury violated Garrity and mandates dismissal | State: Garrity bars use in trial but grand jury use does not require dismissal when other competent evidence exists | The court reversed the dismissal, holding Scott failed to show the indictment was based solely on incompetent (Garrity-tainted) evidence |
| Whether grand jury proceedings qualify as "subsequent criminal proceedings" under Garrity | Scott: grand jury usage is a criminal proceeding and thus barred | State: disputed, but court did not decide this issue | Court avoided deciding the Garrity-scope question because independent competent evidence was presented |
| Burden to quash an indictment based on tainted evidence | Scott: the tainted statements made the indictment invalid | State: defendant must overcome presumption that indictment was returned on legal evidence; must show indictment rested on wholly incompetent evidence | Court: defendant failed to meet burden; other competent evidence supported the indictment |
| Remedy where compelled statements are used in grand jury but cannot be used at trial | Scott: dismissal/suppression required | State: suppression at trial is appropriate but indictment need not be quashed if other evidence suffices | Court: extreme remedy of dismissal not warranted given other evidence before grand jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (constitutional rule that compelled public-employee statements cannot be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions)
- State v. Aiken, 282 Ga. 132 (Georgia voluntariness/Garrity totality-of-the-circumstances test for compelled public-employee statements)
- State v. Lampl, 296 Ga. 892 (dismissal and suppression are extreme remedies to be sparingly used)
- Whitehead v. State, 126 Ga. App. 570 (presumption that an indictment is returned on legal evidence; sufficiency of grand jury evidence generally not inquired into)