Double-jeopardy issue may free man in killing
Posted on 11/22/2002 5:42:42 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Double-jeopardy issue may free man in killing
FW victim's mom, who helped get confession, upset as hearing set
11/22/2002
FORT WORTH - After her son was murdered, Erma Walker helped authorities bring his killer to justice.
She kept her ears open in her Fort Worth neighborhood. She called investigators every day, passing along bits of information.
Police told her she helped secure the confession and 1999 life conviction of the man who twice shot her son, Edric Davis, 22, and dumped his body along the side of the road
She's now watching helplessly as that man, Samuel B. Hill, probably will be let out of prison because of a puzzling set of legal circumstances stemming from his trial.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals this month agreed with a lower court and Mr. Hill's attorney that a mistrial was improperly declared in his first trial. A second trial held days later for the same offense violated double jeopardy, they said.
 "They are freeing a convicted capital murderer," says Erma Walker, holding a photo of her slain 22-year-old son, Edric Davis. Legal entanglements may bring a rehearing in the case. (LOUIS DeLUCA / DMN) |
"There is no doubt in my mind that this man killed my son. He confessed. A jury convicted him," Ms. Walker said. "They are freeing a convicted capital murderer.
"All I can do is pray. I just pray that he won't do this to another family."
Tarrant County prosecutors filed a motion this week for a rehearing but have otherwise exhausted other Texas appeals. Mr. Hill, 23, remains in Huntsville and, because he has attempted-murder charges pending in another local case, would be returned to Tarrant County custody before he is set free.
The circumstances stem from a 1999 Fort Worth trial presided over by State District Judge James Wilson. After the jury was sworn in, court was recessed until the next day, when testimony was scheduled to begin.
That afternoon, a juror called the court coordinator in a "hysterical" state, saying she could not continue because of generalized panic disorder and provided a physician's note. Judge Wilson then dismissed the juror.
When the parties returned the next day, the defense and prosecution met with the judge in his chambers for several hours, trying to decide how to proceed.
Short on jurors
The case did not involve the death penalty, and no juror alternates had been chosen, so the judge faced a dilemma: continue with only 11 jurors or declare a mistrial.
Bill Lane, Mr. Hill's attorney, objected on both counts, saying that the judge hadn't met the requirements for a mistrial that his client wouldn't receive a fair trial with fewer than 12 jurors.
Tarrant County prosecutor Sean Colston, meanwhile, favored moving ahead with the trial but opposed a mistrial.
Judge Wilson went on to declare the mistrial and immediately retried the case. Mr. Hill was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
Because much of the debate occurred in the judge's chambers without a court reporter, the appeals judges wrote that they had no way of knowing how many other options the judge considered.
Mistrial alternative
But in the majority opinion, they stated that "the judge is required to consider and rule out less-drastic alternatives" before granting a mistrial. The appeals judges ruled that Judge Wilson should have proceeded with 11 jurors rather than risk a double-jeopardy issue.
"We conclude that proceeding to trial with 11 jurors was not just an available alternative in this case," the opinion reads. "It is a mandatory alternative."
Mr. Lane said he knew his client had a strong case for an appeal as soon as the first trial ended.
"This is not just about some legal technicality," said Mr. Lane, who was appointed to the case in 1998. "This is a fundamental constitutional right. This was not the case to use a mistrial. It's a deceptively simple legal issue."
Mr. Colston, meanwhile, said the entire situation put everyone in a touchy legal spot.
"There was a lot of thought that went into this," he said. "Either way was not an ideal route. It's sort of like Monday morning quarterbacking."
Judge Wilson said he couldn't recall the exact details of the case and declined to comment.
Debra Windsor, Tarrant County's appellate attorney, said she wants the appeals court to permit a hearing in a trial court to supplement the record to include the content of the in-chambers discussions.
'Strange case'
"It seems like the judge worked very hard to do the right thing," she said. "This issue just doesn't come up a lot. This is a really strange case with a set a circumstances you rarely see."
George Dix, a professor of criminal law and procedure at the University of Texas School of Law, agreed, saying the case raises interesting questions about mistrials, disabled jurors and double jeopardy.
Legal questions
"It's hard to fault the parties in this case because it's just an unfortunate set of circumstances to consider," he said.
Tarrant County prosecutors said they don't agree with the ruling and would focus on aggressively prosecuting Mr. Hill on the prior attempted-murder charge.
"I'm sure we'll prosecute him," said Alan Levy, who heads the criminal division of the district attorney's office. "I mean, why wouldn't we?"
E-mail lfox@dallasnews.com
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.
No, you don't HAVE to be a Texan to get on this list!
The guy has a right to 12 jurors - the law says so. Once the jury is empaneled, 'jeopardy' attaches. The judge should have called in a group of potential jurors and with the lawyers, added one to the already sitting jury. It's not like this guy engineered this - he has rights and it's only natural that he would insist on keeping them.
I think it's amazing how my fellow conservatives are so quick to throw the law out the window when a particularly repugnant defendant is involved.
Legally, he has been 'tried' as soon as the jury is empaneled. I think the reason for this is to prevent the state from engineering a mistrial if they get a jury they don't like.
Bull. It's called the rule of competing harms. In this case, for sake of safety, a judge or anyone can do something unusual.
Something unconstitutional? The appeals court clearly disagrees with you.
The constitution is meant for peace time jurisdiction. In war time rank as in our war on terror, the commander in chief, competing harms and rank rule above that. After all it is the veterans who faught to end the wars, and it is the soldiers that are shot at that have a vested interest in ending those wars and making sure those who start them do not go back in the public to hide.
This crime was completely unrelated to war. It was a citizen on citizen crime during peacetime. Are you suggesting that fighting an undeclared war against a faceless enemy means the constitution no longer applies to citizens at home?
The military is there to fight wars overseas, and if (and only if) we are invaded by foreign forces (in or out of uniform), to act in our defense here. Anything else is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. The military should have zero jurisdiction over an American civilian in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.