|
|
 |
 |
|
Geerdes & Kim Publications
Death Penalty Law
|
LENGTH:
|
30402 words
|
|
ARTICLE:
|
Death Penalty Law, June 1, 2002 - May 31, 2003
Click to view the full-text PDF
|
|
NAME:
|
Michael Mears*, Holly Geerdes**
|
|
BIO:
|
* Director of the Georgia Multi-County Public Defender since 1992. Mississippi State University (B.S., 1968; M.A., 1969); University of Georgia School of Law (J.D., 1977). Member, State Bar of Georgia.
** Senior Appellate Attorney of the Georgia Multi-County Public Defender. University of Iowa (B.A., 1996); Univer-sity of Minnesota Law School (J.D., 2000). Member, State Bar of Georgia. The Authors of this Article would like to acknowledge the research and writing assistance of Caneel Fraser, J.D. class 2005, Harvard Law School.
|
|
SUMMARY:
|
... This Article surveys the death penalty decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court from June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003. ... Dealing with juror dismissal, the court in Lawler found no error in the trial court's dismissal of a prospective juror for tardiness. ... The jury recommended a death sentence for the murder of one police officer and the nonfatal shooting of another police officer, which occurred after the officers escorted Lawler's inebriated girlfriend home in 1997. ... The supreme court found no error in the State's elicitation of testimony that appellant had stolen the weapon used in the murder, stating that "reliable evidence of bad character and of past crimes is admissible in the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial. ... The court affirmed the constitutionality of such evidence, stating, "proper victim-impact evidence in the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial is constitutional and admissible. ... Because "nothing in Apprendi ... renders unconstitutional Georgia's system for bringing death penalty prosecutions to trial," the court main-tained that appellant's indictment by a grand jury for malice murder permitted the State to seek any penalty authorized by statute for that crime, including death. ... The court in Thomason found that appellant was afforded ineffective assis-tance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his trial. ...
|
|
|
|
