 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwell v. State2/12/2003
at might discourage the jury from even considering something less [than second degree murder] because it may minimize the death." Googe echoed this sentiment, stating that instructing the jury on the possible release eligibility for the charged offense and the lesser-included offenses "would have almost automatically precluded any consideration by the jury of the lesser offense ."
Googe acknowledged that during the closing argument in the petitioner's trial he frequently stated that the killing was not "intentional or knowing." Googe conceded that second degree murder, the offense with which the petitioner was charged, only required a mental state of knowing. However, Googe explained that his argument also related to the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, which required either an intentional or knowing mental state.
The petitioner also testified at the post-conviction hearing. He stated that he met with his trial attorneys at least six times prior to trial. The petitioner maintained that he did not realize that Taylor and Googe were preparing him to testify, but acknowledged that they often asked him questions about the offense. Additionally, the petitioner stated that during the lunch break prior to the petitioner's testimony he and the defense attorneys started "preparing pretty heavily" for the petitioner to testify. He further stated that his trial attorneys asked him a few questions in preparation for cross-examination. Nevertheless, the petitioner complained that because of the lack of preparation, he was "nervous" and "tongue tied" during his testimony, thus appearing dishonest to the jury. However, the petitioner asserted that he was honest in his testimony at trial.
The petitioner contended that until preparing to file for post-conviction relief, he was unaware that a potential Batson issue arose during trial. The petitioner also asserted that he informed his trial attorneys of his complete juvenile record, including the Garden Plaza Hotel offense. Regardless, the petitioner admitted that he could not have informed his trial attorneys that Maness was involved in the Garden Plaza Hotel offense because the petitioner himself was not aware that Maness was involved. The petitioner never saw Maness prior to trial and did not know if Maness ever saw him prior to trial. However, the petitioner maintained that he told Taylor and Googe that he did not think that it was a "good idea" to keep Maness on the jury because Maness' father died as a victim of violent crime. The petitioner ultimately deferred to the attorneys' opinion that Maness would be a valuable juror because of his experience working in bars.
At the post-conviction hearing, the State called Jeffrey Maness as a witness. Maness testified that during voir dire at the petitioner's trial he disclosed that he was the general manager of the Garden Plaza Hotel . The petitioner's post-conviction counsel asked Maness to verify his signature on the receipt of property form confirming the return of the stolen VCR. Maness acknowledged that the signature on the form was his. Regardless, Maness asserted that he never saw the petitioner prior to trial. Specifically, Maness maintained that he did not appear in court or prosecute the petitioner on the juvenile theft. Maness conceded that as general manager, he was often required to deal with the police on small matters such as the petitioner's theft. However, Maness repeatedly denied any knowledge or recollection of the petitioner or his offense. Moreover, Maness asserted that his verdict at trial was based upon the proof he heard during the trial. Based upon the foregoing proof, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition for relief.
II. Ana
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.
|
|