*1 appellant. Whittle,
Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert, Gayner, Harrell & Cowart, Gale, Harrell, B. Sapp George Wallace E. & Cowart, appellee.
30548. v. THE COLEMAN STATE. Jordan, Justice.
Defendant Carl Coleman indicted on Wayne was 4,1973, September by grand jury of Seminole County with six counts of murder charged occurring May on (1) (2) 14, 1973, Nelson Alday, Jerry as follows: Ned (3) (4) Alday, Cecil Jimmy Alday, Mary Campbell Alday, (5) (6) Aubrey Alday, Alday. Chester Addis On 18, 1974, after the defendant January finding guilty all six finding statutory counts of murder and after each, circumstances as to aggravating jury fixed the punishment at by electrocution on each count. The case is here on and for appeal mandatory review of the death sentences. The record was filed this court on 15,1975. October After extensions of time to the granted briefs, defendant and the state for the case filing was argued January, 1976.
The state from presented evidence which the was authorized to find the following facts: On the 14, May others, afternoon of defendant and three Billy Isaacs, Isaacs, Carl and George Dungee, drove to the of Jerry residence located in Alday Seminole near County the City of residence, Donalsonville. The home, a mobile unoccupied at that moment. The defendant and one of his companions entered the mobile home for the purpose of burglary. Shortly thereafter members of the family, Jerry father, and his Ned Alday, jeep, arrived a were escorted at gunpoint trailer, into the and were shot to death at close range with Ned handguns. Alday was shot seven times in the head Jerry defendant. Alday was shot four times in the head.
Shortly thereafter a tractor driven by Jerry’s brother, Jimmy Alday, arrived at the trailer. After being forced to empty pockets, placed he was on the living sofa and a fired at handgun room killed with close range.
While one of the four was the tractor moving out of driveway, wife, at Jerry’s Mary, arrived her home She kitchen, car. was forced into the her purse where It emptied. contained her car keys and dollar bill. Two Chester, other members Alday family, Aubrey *2 brother, Jerry’s uncle and arrived in truck. pickup a Mary forced Aubrey was into the bathroom while and Chester were taken at into and gunpoint the bedrooms shot in a manner similar the first two victims. The defendant killed Alday Chester with a the head. single shot
Mary then Alday raped was two or more of men, including taken, defendant Coleman. She then blindfolded, bound and in her car six about miles to a men, wooded area where she was of raped by two beaten when she refused to sodomy, commit oral and her breasts mutilated. She was then killed with two shots. watch Her was then removed from her nude body.
The defendant and his companions left the car they in, had arrived car, and fled in the Alday taking with weapons them and money found in trailer and money on found The victims. defendant and his companions abandoned the car in Alabama, possession took of auto, another and continued their to West flight Virginia where were arrested a days May few after 14th. In confession, his the defendant admitted all killing six of the victims but himself to the according testimony sixteen-year-old Isaacs Billy state, who testified for the defendant Coleman shot the specified two victims above. uncontradicted, however, The evidence is that each of the six victims was killed aby group. member of the
Defendant fingerprints Coleman’s were identified as on being a beer can found in the kitchen of the Alday trailer, and car on the found in vicinity Mary Alday’s body. Billy Isaacs’ were found fingerprints on that same auto as on well as a camera in the Alday home and on the Alday auto found Fingerprints Alabama. of Carl Isaacs George Dungee found. were also At the time of the arrests Virginia West three handguns were found. Ballistics tests showed three weapons caused the deaths of victims. One of persons arrested had possession watch identified
as belonging Mary Alday. The defendant rested without presenting any evidence. found the defendant guilty six counts of
murder and imposed the death sentence as to each of them. On appeal, errors, defendant enumerates overruling his motion for of venue and change upholding by the trial court of the constitutionality penalty. addition, are required by we law to make an independent review of the death sentences. Code '(c). § 27-2537
The crimes 14, described were committed on May 1973. Defendant was arrested on May was indicted on September 4, and his trial four-day commenced 14,1974. January Motion for of venue based upon prejudicial pre-trial juror partiality was 20, 1973, filed on September was heard on September 27 and was thereafter overruled on October 9. The motion was renewed and amended immediately prior to trial. The amendment added as grounds for change of venue that two other defendants been convicted and sentenced to crimes, death for these same and that these convictions widely publicized sentences were well known *3 the community would cause defendant’s jury to render guilty verdicts and death sentences. After voir dire and jury selection, the court overruled the motion as amended.
1. The threshhold in question this appeal is whether the trial court erred in the overruling defendant’s motion change venue based upon prejudicial pre-trial pub- licity affecting the partiality of jurors. the
The motion was supported introduction into evidence of issues of the local newspaper, clippings from the Herald, 24 Albany issues the Dothan Eagle, and 3 magazine articles. These items cover new stories during period from discovery of the May 15, crimes on through pre-trial hearing the motion for change venue. The record contains no clippings news during the three and one-half months immediately preceding the appellant’s trial. §
Code Ann.
27-1201 provides for a change of venue
(1)
in any criminal case where
an impartial
jury cannot be
(2)
obtained or
if there
a is
or
probability
danger of
with
appeal
are
this
violence. We
concerned
an
was selected
impartial
of whether
question
because the record demands a
there was no
finding
indication of mob
that there
County;
violence
Seminole
had been no
or disorder
during
preliminary
outbursts
stages
trial,
of the
actual
proceeding
or at
absolutely no evidence that
appellant’s
safety
been threatened in
manner.
our duty
As is
we must
then look to
voir
dire record of examination
an
prospective jurors in
effort to determine whether or not
impartial
jury could have been and
obtained for
the trial of this
County.
Seminole
this
this
court
considering
question
fully
recognizes
the well established
that a
principle
trial
before a fair and impartial
jury is a basic requirement of
process.
due
recognize
We also
of the news
right
media
report
to
the factual
a crime and
happenings
surrounding
report
a trial based
To restrict
accurately
thereon.
right of the
press
regard
inconsistent
would be
the First Amendment and
public
with the
to a
right
free flow of
media,
information. This right
however,
must not be
judicial
allowed
interfere with the
calm
which must
a trial
surround
free from emotionalism and
attempted
sensationalism.
The courts have
to balance
It
equities.
was stated in
v. McNally,
United States
(8th
485 F2d 398, 403
Cir., 1973),
because, however,
"Just
there has been widespread or even
adverse
is not
in itself
grounds to
of venue. As stated in
grant
Irvin v. Dowd,
717, 722,
1639, 1642,
366 U. S.
81 S.Ct.
(1961),
The record us extensive very before shows the typewritten the pages) voir dire questioning pro- spective and that jurors. selected The record shows the for questioned jurors and selected
prospective the state’s minutes each twenty five to approximately record The accused. for the and counsel counsel stated selected jurors that the doubt beyond establishes caused heard, read had seen, or had they nothing that appellant the or against opinion to form them or guilt appellant’s as to the opinion no fixed they that had or included whether of the range questions innocence. presumed that the appellant the understood juror not doubt; a reasonable beyond until proven guilty innocent the moment understood at juror whether innocent; presumed that questioning the state the burden was on understood that juror that the doubt; a reasonable beyond of the defendant prove guilt between impartial perfectly mind was juror’s that each accused; verdict rendered and that and the the state presented the evidence be determined by them would responded jurors All selected trial. on in manner to these appropriately questions note here We appellant. to counsel for satisfactory of his did not exhaust all the appellant that counsel for jury. to the selection challenges prior peremptory general questions, the answers to these In addition to dire examination testified on voir the selected follows: - he the victims when That he knew Juror No. funeral; that he knew them; that he did not atténd saw tried and had been of the other defendants that convicted; about the cases had read a lot he homicides heard about the and had seen and newspapers him did not make television, things these but guilty; probably think the defendant was - two of the No. That he worked Juror home, nor had in their victims but had never visited funeral; home; him in he did not attend visited trials and had read the other and that while he knew of crimes on heard about articles and had newspaper swayed had not reports television and radio that other; him way one or - victims; did not know 3 That he
Juror No. he had read funeral; although did not attend the and that and radio on television heard about the case *5 indicated that the defendant was he felt guilty, impartial juror; be an that he could -4 Juror No. That he 5 or 6 miles from the scene lived did the victims but acquainted crime funeral; not attend the that he had read and heard the news accounts of the crime and knew that two other cases had been tried with verdicts of guilty; - did Juror No. 5 That he did not know the victims and funeral; not attend the that while he had read news reports and swayed knew about the trial he was not them. - Juror 6No. That he had met one of the victims five or six years before the incident because of an insurance funeral; claim but did not attend the that he had read and trials; heard news of the homicides and of the - Juror No. 7 That he was all the acquainted with victims except Mary Alday; that he lived some miles them; from funeral; that did he attend the that what he had read and heard mind would not incline his towards defendant’s guilt; -8 Juror No. That she acquainted with all the victims except Mary but did not them know well enough hers; to visit in their home or to have them visit in that did funeral; she not attend the that she had read trials; newspapers and knew the outcome of the other - victims; Juror No. 9 That she did not know she did funeral; not attend the and that she knew the trials; outcome of the other - Juror No. 10 That she knew some of the victims by funeral; did
sight only; that she not attend the that she had read newspapers articles about magazine matter but felt that she could be impartial; - victims; Juror No. 11 That did she not know the she had read about the cases and prior convictions but felt that she could impartial; be -12 Juror No. That he did not personally know the victims; had read reports news of the homicides and knew convictions; there were prior two and that he had not discussed the case.
The record in this that 106 prospective case shows jurors were twenty examined and that (children, health, excused for initially personal reasons etc.), Of prospective jurors. hearing, leaving eighty-six (seven for these nine were stricken for normal cause for relationship prosecutors to the victims or opposition penalty), leaving unalterable to the death examined as seventy-seven prospective jurors who were having opinion formed or and other expressed these were stricken Thirty-eight matters. to the opinions motion fixed having defendant’s used the accused. As noted before the defendant guilt of peremptory nineteen of his strikes twenty eight selection of the and the state of its ten. Georgia now turn to the light of this record we *6 The law in is Georgia and federal cases on this subject. hold, established, so that a myriad well and a of cases to the sound addresses itself change motion for a of venue be discretion will not of the trial and that judge, discretion that there it be shown appeal disturbed on unless can State, v. an abuse of this discretion. Jarrell 410 Ga. 258) State, (216 (1975); and Allen v. 709, 712 235 Ga. SE2d 405) (1975). (221 SE2d federal cases and was
This
is echoed
the
principle
in
reiterated
the
Court of the United States
Supreme
—
—
(96
Ross,
the recent case of Ristaino v.
U. S.
SC
1017,
258),
LE2d
"Voir dire 'is
where it was said
court,
great
conducted under the
of the
and a
supervision
must,
deal
of
be left to its sound discretion.’
necessity,
cases).
of
This is so because the 'determination
(citing
such an
impartiality,
plays
important
which demeanor
part,
particularly
judge.’
is
within the
of the trial
province
(1963).”
Louisiana,
723,
Rideau v.
373 U.
S.
this voir dire record as set forth above we
Viewing
cannot conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion
in overruling
During
the motion for
of venue.
change
voir
showing
dire examination
there was no
jurors summoned to
case had formed
try
appellant’s
such a fixed
opinion as to either the
or
innocence
guilt
based
media accounts of the
on news
homicides.
find in
We
this case no evidence of the "total
judicial
inundation of the
the media” as found
process by
by the United
Supreme
States
Court
cases such as Estes
(95
543) (1965)
Texas,
v.
381 U.
1628, 14
S. 532
SC
LE2d
(86
Maxwell,
v.
Sheppard
1507,
A recent
case
involving
accused who had
Georgia
kidnapped
buried
alive
victim
resulted
tremendous unfavorable media publicity concerning the
crime and the accused. In reviewing appellant’s new trial
contention based on such
in that
publicity
case this court
stated as
test
follows: "The
as to
unfavorable
whether
newspaper publicity had so
a case
prejudiced
against one
accused of a crime
fair trial cannot
had is
be
whether the jurors summoned to
formed
try
case have
fixed opinions
guilt
as to the
or innocence of the accused
from
such
reading
unfavorable newspaper publicity.
. .
The transcript
of the voir
pro
dire examination
spective jurors ...
dispute
shows without
who were selected to
try
accused
formed no fixed
opinion as to his
or
guilt
perfectly
innocence
State,
him and
impartial between
notwithstanding
newspaper publicity
wide
which
to the case
given
(198
Caldwell,
before the trial.”
v.
SE2d
Krist
at question upon juror venue based Dowd, due to partiality pre-trial are Irvin v. (81 751) (1961) U. S. 717 SC Murphy 6 LE2d *7 — — (95 589) (1975). Florida, 2031, U. S. SC In LE2d Irvin, the accused was convicted of one murder whereas pre-trial the to publicity related six murders committed Evansville, the of vicinity Indiana in 1954 and 1955. The events connected extensively with murders were the covered news Voir of by media. dire examination the prospective jurors showed that the of 430 panel from prospective jurors, having 268 were stricken for cause for all, fixed as In opinions to the accused’s guilt. prospective jurors, examined, approximately 90% of those opinion entertained some as to from mere guilt, ranging suspicion to absolute The record further certainty. eight jurors showed that of the case empaneled try to accused this record thought guilty. On basis of Supreme Court reversed Irvin’s conviction sentence. the accused Florida, supra, Murphy
In breaking Florida County, in Dade convicted theft, intent to commit armed, with while entering, was notorious robbery. He to commit intent assault with theft, jewel museum York in an earlier New his part for him known to be caused style life flamboyant and his convicted He been as the Surf.” "Murph the press involving indictment a federal to pled guilty murder and publicized. case was well Each new stolen securities. Florida, County, in Dade his case trial of Upon the thirty questioned, were seventy-eight prospective stricken reasons, twenty being personal for excused being prosecutor the defense peremptorily with two of six jury as a eight serving remaining Court Supreme this record the the basis of alternates. On Irvin v. conviction, distinguishing Murphy’s affirmed Dowd, example, for "In Irvin v. Dowd, as follows: supra, point on the examined that 90% of those the court noted court and the guilt, in the accused’s inclined to belief were In 268 of the 430 veniremen. for this cause had excused contrast, persons the 78 case, present an indicated excused because questioned say, The court went on to guilt.” opinion petitioner’s conclude, in the circumstances sum, unable to "In we are receive a fair did not case, petitioner this presented setting had failed to show trial. Petitioner selection or that inherently prejudicial trial was inference of complains permits he process of which 44 LE2d 596. prejudice.” actual nearly case more record opinion our case, Murphy supra, situation the factual parallels case. Irvin v. Dowd from the distinguishable and is trial court that the reason for our conclusion Another the motion for overruling did not abuse its discretion failed appellant fact that of venue is the change general challenges. all his peremptory exhaust the trial not reverse appellate rule is courts will of venue where overruling court’s of a motion his peremptory has not exhausted Cir.) (2d F2d Moran, 236 United States v. challenges. (1956) State, (Cert. 909); 192 S. Haddock v. den., 352 U. S.
93
(69
(Fla.)
224
(1939);
Pearson,
State v.
La. 393
S2d
802
512)
522)
(148
(1953);
P2d
State v.
Layton,
Ore.
(1944) (Cert.
924);
den., 347 U. S.
Meador v. United
(9th Cir.)
States,
(1965);
v.
Bradley
341 F2d 381
and
762)
(198
(1964).
State,
instance,
2. Another reason for that the trial concluding judge did not abuse his in this is that during discretion case the trial the state and presented overpowering overwhelming mass of evidence on the of the question appellant’s guilt. appellant made no effort to refute In this mass of evidence in manner whatsoever. addition, the state a of the introduced confession which he admitted his freely voluntarily active as man in this horrible participation trigger a crime, of the five including style killing execution male victims and female rape the murder and of the victim. Under this have evidence no other verdict could been reasonably regardless returned a of the jury locale of the trial. State, (1882) v.
This court in
Hussey
69 Ga.
denying
error, said,
new trial based on admitted
"There
mTroem,
all,
is
at
for doubt as to his
It is the
guilt.
case,
sort,
this court
brought
ever
strongest
recollection,
within our
and no matter
knowledge
have,
how
trials he
the facts
law
many
might
it
absolutely demand the verdict of
and such would
guilty,
be
outraged by
jury
unless both facts and law were
State,
in Poole v.
their oaths violated.”
This case was cited
(111
265) (1959),
it
380, 384
100 Ga.
SE2d
where was
App.
said, "However, error,
reversible,
must be harmful.
be
present
is that
case the
evidence
the record
offered no
the State’s witnesses.
The defendant
statement,
made no
and the evidence of
evidence and
the error
Accordingly,
State
a verdict of guilty.
demands
is not such
failing
jury
trial court
to exclude
v.
Hussey
will
about a reversal
See
bring
jcase.
(65
State,
State,
v.
54;
SE
Slappey
App.
69 Ga.
6 Ga.
300).
(69
254); Bienert State,
This
85 Ga.
SE2d
App.
authorized to
would not be the case had the
been
course, a verdict
is
Of
for the defendant.
render a verdict
*9
that
in the sense
in a criminal case
never demanded
However, where, verdict.
guilty
direct a
may
court
denying
no statement
here,
defendant makes
verdict,
guilty
a
and the evidence authorizes
guilt,
in
errors
the sense
such verdict
is demanded
v.
People
See
may be harmless.”
on the trial
occurring
16)
(25
(1939),
24A CJS
and
After above, firmly we conclude the authorities cited view of in did not abuse its discretion the trial court of venue. motion for overruling appellant’s 3. attack on the appellant’s There is no merit Penalty Death Statute constitutionality Georgia’s (Ga. 27-2534.1). 159-172; 1973, § L. Ann. v. pp. Coley Code 612) (204 (1974) State, 231 subsequent Ga. 829 SE2d and decisions of this court. (Code 1973,
4. L. 159 et by p. seq We are Ga. required (c) (1-3)) § all sentences of death as Ann. 27-2537 to review to three criteria. first,
As to the we conclude that the sentences of in under the imposed imposed this case were not arbitrary other passion, prejudice, influence of or (See 1 the opinion). factor Division statutory conclude Secondly, ag- we (murder found gravating circumstances kidnapping while the commission of and as to burglary armed 5 counts and murder in the commission of while count) 1 and as to robbery, burglary kidnapping count. supported by overwhelming evidence as to each Thirdly, we have the evidence compared sentences in this case with similar cases contained appendix attached to this case opinion. This involves multiple type execution murders while the commission of other capital Wayne felonies. Coleman’s sentences to death are not excessive or to the disproportionate penalty imposed similar cases the crimes and the considering defendant. concur, except All the Justices Judgment affirmed. J., Hall, J.,
Ingram, only, who concurs the judgment who concurs in 3 and judgment, Divisions Hill, JJ., who dissent. Gunter Argued January 12,1976 1976. Decided June Moulton, Jr., Tracy Lambert, Harold for appellant. tern, J. Myers, Attorney Frank District pro Peter Zack Geer, Bolton, General, Arthur K. Attorney Kirby G. Atkinson, General, Assistant Attorney for appellee. Staff
Appendix.
v.
Henderson
Similar cases considered
the court:
State,
(179
76) (1970);
State,
v.
In sentences, reviewing required this court is (Ga. (c) law L. 159,165; § pp. Code Ann. 27-2537 (1)) to determinations, make three of is one which determine the imposed whether sentence of death "was under the of passion, influence or other prejudice, any In arbitrary review, factor.” this this must make its court own determination. I
Although can the unhesitatingly say statutory that aggravating found are amply circumstances the supported by that, the evidence and considering crime and the defendant, imposed death sentences case are not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty (c) (2) (Code (3)), § similar Ann. I
imposed cases 27-2537 am unable to declare that the sentences not imposed passion, under the influence of or other prejudice were, I I say cannot, factor. do but arbitrary they not as the requires, say law were not. approval
The by this court of the of death sentence is responsibilities. the most awesome of our When time arrives, for execution of the matter sentence will be I beyond our control and want no thoughts second or I reservations. therefore must respectfully for the dissent reasons which follow. majority of this court treat of venue and approval the sentence of death two separate
issues. I necessity Because determine whether imposed death sentence was under the influence of passion, factor, or other I prejudice arbitrary am separate unable to these two issues. population
Seminole County has of seven thousand (four over) to the 1970 according census thousand or is located the southwest Georgia. corner of addition to the transmission of the news by oral communication, county residents read the Don- News, alsonville published weekly circulation copies County. Seminole also read They Herald, Albany published daily with-circulation of 518 copies in County, Seminole Dothan Eagle. Television stations in Albany, Dothan and Tallahassee are seen county. Although the record contains no television tapes or radio scripts, prospective on voir testifying dire recalled or heard having seen news murders TV and radio. *11 The record contains issues of the weekly News, Donalsonville 38 clippings from daily Albany Herald, 24 issues of daily Dothan and Eagle, three magazine articles, all introduced in connection with the September and dated hearing period during May 15 to September 28, covering period discovery from through crimes the pre-trial on the motion hearing for change of venue. The articles of record that report three of men four had from a escaped Maryland prison facility where this defendant was for serving years robbery, that a had truck been escape, stolen that during a Richard belonged to Alday’s body Mary near car found that missing, Miller, that Mr. Miller was Wayne because killed Miller having confessed to defendant had escape, truck used of the the theft Miller witnessed help Maryland taken to that this defendant body. Miller’s locate 2,500 people that reported articles
The news where one mass funeral attended to have reported the service was preachers performing for responsible for those pray crowd to weeping asked the "I that destruction, hope pray saying: this awful to see come eyes they close their will they before are.” they what is County reported of Seminole Sheriff it, "If I I’d have me a way to have said: about
press my precook days, just keep oven and I’d them for several large I think that ... And don’t punish them alive and let them them, I’m I’m protecting would me. . . Whenever satisfy I court, hope bring to do them going my job I put up don’t see could they’ll get justice... they where . men are lower any plea mercy. . The acts of these starts If out of hand and gets than animals... a citizen to arrest and way there’s one shooting people up, in God . . man that believes shotgun. Any that’s with a I could throw the capital punishment. believes . . minute’s and never lose to the electric chair switch sleep.” the 77 shows that of
The voir dire examination having as to who were examined prospective jurors 38 were stricken expressed opinion, formed or as to the having opinions defendant’s motion for fixed accused, The defendant used guilt jurors. leaving its and the state used peremptory 19 of his 20 strikes 12. leaving only prospective those Examination of the voir dire of defendant shows stricken peremptorily guilt to"the no opinion 10 stated that had formed the belief expressed juror such stricken the accused. One conceded guilty, men convicted earlier were the two paper in the Donalsonville articles she read that the news she defendants, acknowledged all four all referred to impartial. could be reads, but felt she believes what she *12 juror Another such the belief expressed newspapers told "just happened.” what One stated although he had discussed the defendants already two found he had guilty, not discussed this defendant. Two were related witnesses would believe their testimony. prospective juror
One peremptorily by stricken defendant testified on voir dire that she had known the victims for or 9 years, except that she had known Mary Alday only a little over 2 years, that she had attended the funeral and had read news, newspapers heard the that she had testified as a witness for the state in the two trials, prior that she was named to be a witness in this case, and that she had not been influenced what she (When had heard and give could the defendant a fair trial: called as a witness in case, this she testified that she worked with Mary Alday and that she last saw her at 5 p.m. on 14. May The witness identified the clothing Mrs. Alday had been wearing and identified Mrs. Alday’s watch.) Defendant’s challenge for cause juror to this overruled and she was stricken peremptorily. dire,
On voir the twelve jurors who served testified as follows:
Juror No. 1 testified that he knew the victims when he saw them. did Although funeral, he not go to the days after their deaths he went by the trailer to pay respects. He knew the two other cases were tried and their outcome and had discussed those trials. He had read a lot about the cases in the newspapers had seen and heard about the homicides on television and radio. The things he had heard did not make him think the defendant was probably guilty. (later foreman)
Juror No. 2 selected as testified that he had known the victims for eight years and had worked with two of them. They had never visited in his home nor he in theirs and he did not attend the funeral. He knew two other defendants had been tried and both were found but guilty he had not discussed it with anyone. He had read newspaper articles and heard on television and radio about the crimes. Although the news he had read and heard pointed to defendant’s guilt, reports did not him sway one way or the other.
Juror 3 did not did Aldays. No. know the He know of the prior trials and convictions he knew that defendant was fourth man. he had read Although about the newspaper, case he had seen it on television once or twice. Although indicated that the defendant was he guilty, he felt could *13 be impartial.
Juror No. lived five or miles from trailer and six all Aldays knew but did attend not the funeral. He had read and heard some news accounts knew other cases had been tried and verdicts of returned. guilty
Juror No. did not He had know victims. read news reports and knew about the trials but was not swayed by them.
Juror No. had met one the victims five or six years earlier connection with insurance claim. He had read and heard news of the homicides and trials.
Juror No. knew all of the Aldays except Mary and went to the funeral. He had seen newspaper and television accounts of the crimes and trials.
Juror No. knew all of the that were killed Aldays did except Mary enough but not know them well to visit them and not did attend funeral. had read their She trials. newspapers and knew the outcomes the other Juror 9 did not the Aldays. kept up No. know She with the and had by newspaper cases television and discussed the matter with a friend. She the outcome knew trials. earlier
Juror No. 10 knew the victims and had seen by sight newspaper and television of the other trials. She accounts also had read magazine a article about the matter. The information she had read was to the unfavorable defendant but felt impartial. she she could be 11 did
Juror No. not personally. know victims She had read paper prior about the cases convictions. The information she had read was unfavorable to the defendant and she believed to some extent the things she had read but felt she could be impartial.
Juror No: 12 knew them but the victims when he saw did not reports know them He had read news personally. of prior homicides knew there were two
convictions. He had not discussed the case.
In summary, four of the impaneled jurors thought guilty indicated that the defendant was that the impartial. juror but felt could be Another attended the and another to the Alday funeral went pay respects. trailer A majority jurors knew one or more of All the victims. twelve aware of the outcome of the two earlier trials of co-defendants. I summary, personally cannot make the necessary determination jury which imposed sentences of death I acted dispassionately. would reverse grant the defendant of venue. Although . another from a different venue be would authorized verdict, under the I law reach the same at least could I then declare that found that its decision as to sentence was not under the imposed passion, prejudice influence or other factor. arbitrary
I must therefore respectfully dissent.
30604. THE PHILLIPS v. STATE. Justice. Gunter,
Appellant was convicted for committed having armed robbery was sentenced years. to fifteen He has appealed.
The evidence shows that three other parties robbed a Magic Market in Albany, Georgia. Shortly after the all four robbery apprehended getaway car which also contained money checks taken from the store and pistol.
The appellant and the three parties apprehended with him all statements, made which were reduced to writing, admitting participation the armed robbery. The statement of each party signed by also the other three, and the officers taking statements testified all four parties admitted that the contents of all four written statements were true.
Appellant contends that his statement was not voluntarily made, and that the admission evidence of into the other three statements him against denied his right