 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwell v. State2/12/2003
rial. Nevertheless, Taylor, Googe, and the petitioner ultimately decided to keep Maness on the jury because Maness had previously worked in a bar. The charges against the petitioner resulted from a fight which began in a bar; therefore, the attorneys believed that Maness could better understand how bar fights erupt and how the petitioner needed to defend himself against the victim's attack. Moreover, both attorneys believed that Maness could be fair and pay attention to the case and would thereby be a good juror. After reviewing the remaining jury pool, the attorneys made a tactical decision to keep Maness on the jury. Taylor could not recall the petitioner objecting to Maness' presence on the jury.
Prior to the petitioner's criminal trial, there was a civil trial held as a result of the bar fight. In relation to the civil case, Dr. James H. Shull gave a deposition in which he asserted that if the bar, Planet Rock, had not delayed seeking medical attention for the victim, the victim would have survived. In preparation for the criminal trial, Taylor contacted Dr. Shull to inquire if he would be willing to testify on behalf of the petitioner. Initially, Dr. Shull seemed enthusiastic about the prospect. However, Taylor and Googe both asserted that Dr. Shull became unresponsive to further attempts to contact him and eventually seemed hostile to the defense. Accordingly, the attorneys no longer pursued Dr. Shull's testimony. Moreover, Googe asserted that Dr. Shull's deposition would be challenged because it was based upon an "erroneous fact pattern," explaining that Dr. Shull believed that the Planet Rock employees waited an hour to call for aid when in fact they waited only seventeen minutes.
As to the Batson issue, Taylor recalled a potential issue arising during jury selection. After the State challenged two black jurors, Taylor objected and brought the issue to the trial court's attention. Taylor and Googe recalled that the State gave a race-neutral explanation for the challenges. Specifically, Googe remembered that the State challenged the black jurors because of their criminal history. Subsequently, the defense attorneys chose not to pursue the issue. Taylor opined that the defense "didn't raise it during the Motion for New Trial because we didn't think that there would be any merit to it." Neither Taylor nor Googe was aware that the State failed to challenge a white juror who had a previous conviction for driving under the influence (DUI).
Both Taylor and Googe asserted that they met with the petitioner several times prior to trial, either together or individually. During these meetings, the attorneys talked with the petitioner about testifying at trial. Additionally, Taylor and Googe rehearsed with the petitioner the questions they would ask on direct examination and posed several potential cross-examination questions. The petitioner finally decided at a lunch break during trial that he wanted to testify. During that lunch break, the attorneys again reviewed with the petitioner the questions that would be asked during his testimony.
Taylor and Googe maintained that they did not ask the trial court to charge the jury on the possible release eligibility dates for each offense charged. Specifically, Taylor asserted that the attorneys did not want to inflame the jury by having the trial court instruct that a second degree murder conviction carried a sentencing range of fifteen to sixty years and a possible release eligibility after service of eighty-five percent of that sentence, yet the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter carried a sentence of three to fifteen years with release eligibility after service of thirty percent of the sentence. Taylor opined, " h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|