Furman v. Georgia Appendix

    A P P E N D IX

f
i;
|: MJG

l&jpratto (&mxt of %  llnxtvk Btatw
Term, 1971

No. 69-5003

W illiam Henry F urman,
Petitioner,

State of Georgia,
Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JULY 23, 1969 
CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 28, 1971



iatpmnr ( ta r t of %  Hnxttb j^tatrs
Term, 1971

N o. 69-5003

W illiam Henry F urman,

—v.—
Petitioner,

State of Georgia,
Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

I N D E X
Page

Record from the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia
Relevant Docket E n tr ie s ____________________________  1
Indictment filed September 12, 1967 _________________  2
Verdict of Jury, September 20, 1968 ________________  4
Sentence of Court, September 20, 1968 _______________  5
Petition for Psychiatric Examination and order grant­

ing psychiatric examination, entered October 24,
1967 ____________________________________________ 6

Clerk’s certificate, dated March 17, 1969—Copy of record 
from Chatham Superior Court to the Supreme Court 
of Georgia _______________________________________ 9



n I N D E X

Page

Record from the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia 
—Continued

Transcript of trial, September 20, 1968 ______________  10
Appearances ___________________________________ 10
Jury  selection __________________________________ 12
State’s Witnesses: _____________________________  17

Testimony of Lanell Micke 
—direct ____  17
—cross _________________________________  22
—redirect ______________________________  22
—recross _______________________________  23

Testimony of Sgt. G. W. Spivey 
—direct ________________________________  24
—cross _________________________________  28
-—redirect ______________________________  31

Testimony of Dr. Harold Smith 
—direct ____________________________ ....___  32
—cross __________________________________ 33

Testimony of J. E. Mincey 
—direct ________________________________  33

Testimony of John F. Walters 
—direct ________________________________  34
—cross _________________________________  36

Testimony of A. Hall
—direct _________________________________ 37
—cross _________________________________  41

Testimony of Officer J. R. Goode 
—direct ________________________________  41
—cross _________________________________  43
—redirect ______________________________  43

Testimony of Detective B. W. Smith 
—redirect ______________________________  44
—recross _______________________________  45
—re-redirect ____________________________  46
—re-recross _____________________________  48

Testimony of Dr. Charles Sullenger 
—direct ________________________________  49



Page
Record from the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia 
—Continued

Transcript of trial, September 20, 1968—Continued
Defendant’s Witnesses: ________________________  50

William Henry Furman—Unsworn statement 50
Testimony of Sgt. G. W. Spivey (recalled)

—recross _______________________________  55
State Exhibit No. 8 ___________________________  57
Charge of the Court ___________________________  59

Certificate of Court Commissioner, EJC of Ga. _______  65

Opinion and Judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia,
Duckworth, J., dated April 24, 1969 __________________  66

Order granting motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis 
and granting the petition for w rit of certiorari, June 28,
1971 ________________________________________________  69

I N D E X  iii



IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA

1

State of Georgia

v.

William Henry F urman

Cronological Index of Relevant Docket E ntries

1967

September 12 Indictment
October 24 Petition for Psychiatric Examination and 

Order Granting Phychiatric Examination

1968

September 20 Jury Verdict on Indictment 
September 20 Sentence of the Court

1969

March 3 Notice of Appeal



2

GEORGIA, CHATHAM COUNTY

THE GRAND JURORS SELECTED, CHOSEN, AND 
SWORN FOR THE COUNTY OF CHATHAM, TO-

in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge 
and accuse WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN of the county 
and State aforesaid, with the offense of MURDER for 
that the said Defendant in the County of Chatham and 
State of Georgia aforesaid, on the 11th day of August 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 
sixty-seven, with force and arms, Did unlawfully and 
with malice aforethought kill and murder William J. 
Micke, by shooting the said William J. Micke with a 
pistol, contrary to the laws of the State of Georgia, the 
good order, peace and dignity thereof.

WIT:
1 W alter A. Fulmer Foreman
2 Armand D. Wells
3 W. Claggett Gilbert, Jr.
4 Eugene G. Hardy
5 Ralph E. Kennickell
6 Richard Singleton
7 Charles L. Stewart
8 William L. Hopkins, Jr.
9 William D. Mathews

10 Glenn C. Kimble
11 James R. Fisher
12 J. Fleming Bel

13 Mary E. Heidt
14 Thomas C. Bordeaux
15 James A. Eason
16 Frank J. Finocehiaro
17 Eros K. Bell
18 Dwight L. Bliss, Sr.
19 Jake Fine, Jr.
20 Fred H. Quante
21 Hugh H. Jackson, Jr.
22 David A. Byck, III
23 Frederick J. Hart, Jr.

/S ;/ Andrew J. Ryan 
Solicitor General 
Eastern Judicial Circuit of

Georgia



3

No. 17216
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF CHATHAM COUNTY 
September Term, 1967

State

William Henry F urman

MURDER

B. W. Smith 
Prosecutor

True Bill

9/12 1967
,/s/ W. W. Fulmer 

Foreman

Minute Book 41 Folio 264 
42 353

A ndrew J. Ryan, Jr. 
Solicitor General E. J. C. 

of Georgia

Witnesses for the State:
B. W. Smith, J. M. Tanquay, Lt. Kendricks, L. Low­
er, Johnny Dozier, C. Walker, J. D. Wood, A. Hall, 
G. W. Spivey, J. R. Goode, H. F. Prouse, J. E. Min- 
cey, C. W. Waters, Mrs. William J. Micke, Dr. H. M. 
Smith, James Furman.

The Defendant William Henry Furman being in open 
Court, waives arraignment, pleads Not Guilty, and puts 
self upon the country.

,/s/ B. C. Mayfield
Atty. for Deft.



4

The State says that he is Guilty, and will so prove 
this 20 day of Sept. 1968.

,/s,/ Andrew J. Ryan, Jr.
Solicitor General E. J. C. 

of Georgia
September 20, 1968

We the jury find the defendant guilty.

/s /  Thomas V. Dye 
Foreman

This indictment was returned into Open Court, on 
the 12 day of Sept., 1967

/s /  Ben P. Axson 
Clerk
Superior Court of Chatham 

County, Georgia



5

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 
OF CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA 

EASTERN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
September 1968 Term 

Indictment No. 17216

State of Georgia

vs
W illiam Henry F urman

Charge: Murder
Plea: Of Not Guilty
Verdict: Guilty

Sentence of the Court

The above defendant, William Henry Furman having 
on September 20, 1968 at the present Term of Court, 
been convicted in the Superior Court of Chatham County, 
Georgia, of the offense of murder, a capital crime, with­
out recommendation,

IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED, ORDERED 
AND ADJUDGED that the said William Henry Furman 
be delivered to the Director of Corrections for electro­
cution at such penal institution as may be designated 
by said Director, and the said defendant shall, on No­
vember 8, 1968, be put to death by electrocution in the 
manner provided by law.

IN OPEN COURT, this September 20, 1968.

,/s/ Dunbar Harrison
Judge Superior Court

Andrew J. Ryan , Jr. Eastern Judicial Circuit of
Solicitor General Georgia
B. Clarence Mayfield
Attorney for Defendant



TO THE SUPERIOR COURT 
OF CHATHAM COUNTY

State of Georgia 
County of Chatham

Indictment for Murder

No. --------

State

vs.
William Henry F urman

The petition of WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN, re­
spectfully shows:

1. This application is being made by his counsel on 
his behalf, which counsel deems necessary for the ade­
quate defense of said Defendant.

2. That following an interview with said Defendant, 
Counsel being very much concerned as to the extent of 
Defendant’s mentality and ability to realize the gravity 
of his actions, Counsel feels that in the interest of jus­
tice that Defendant should be given an extensive, thor­
ough and comprehensive psychiatric examination and 
evaluation in accordance with mordern accepted methods 
of psychiatry at an appropriate institution to be desig­
nated by this Court at the expense of the State in order 
for the Court and Jury to have this information in de­
termining the guilt or innocence of the accused and 
should Defendant be found guilty as charged, in assess­
ing the proper punishment.

WHEREFORE, Movant prays that this Honorable 
Court issue a Rule Nisi to the Solicitor General of Chat­
ham County, Georgia, to show cause, if any he can, why 
this petition should not be granted.

/ s /  B. Clarence Mayfield
Attorney for Defendant



7

RULE— NISI

The foregoing petition having been presented and upon 
consideration, it is Ordered that a Rule Nisi issue and 
that the Honorable Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor Gen­
eral, Chatham County, Georgia, show cause before me 
on the 24 day of Oct., 1967, why this petition should 
not be granted.

In Open Court, this 24 day of October, 1967.

,/s/ Dunbar Harrison 
Judge
Superior Court, E. J. C. of 

Georgia



8

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 
OP CHATHAM COUNTY

Georgia
Chatham  County

Indictment for Murder

No. --------

The State

vs.
W illiam Henry F urman 

Order

The defendant herein through his attorney having filed 
a special plea of insanity,

Upon consideration of the matter, it is ordered that 
the said WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN, be transported 
by the Sheriff of this County to the Milledgeville State 
Hospital for psychiatric examination and be kept there 
until said examination has been completed. Upon the 
completion of such examination, the defendant is to be 
returned to this County to stand trial for the offense 
with which he is charged.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the findings of 
said Hospital be transmitted to this Court with a copy 
thereof to the Solicitor General of this Circuit and to 
Counsel for the defendant

This 24 day of October, 1967.

/ s /  Dunbar Harrison 
Judge
Superior Court E. J. C. of 

Georgia



9

CLERK’S OFFICE, SUPERIOR COURT

State op Georgia 
Chatham  County

I, BEN AXSON, Clerk of the Superior Court of Chat­
ham County, Georgia do hereby certify: That the fore­
going pages, hereto attached, contain the original Notice 
of Appeal together with a true and complete copy of 
those portions of the record required by the Notice of 
Appeal, to be transmitted to the Supreme Court of Geor­
gia, in the case of STATE OF GEORGIA, Appellee 
versus WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN, Appellant,

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
official signature and affixed the Seal of the Superior 
Court, at the City of Savannah, County and State afore­
said upon the 17 day of March in the year of our Lord 
One Thousand Nine Hunderd and 69.

/s /  Ben P. Axson 
Clerk
Superior Court, Chatham 

County, Georgia



[fol. 1]
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

OF CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA

Indictment 17,216—Murder

The State

versus
William Henry F urman

10

Transcript of trial proceedings in the above styled case 
heard before the HONORABLE DUNBAR HARRISON, 
Judge, Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia and 
a JURY, on the 20th day of September, 1968.—

APPEARANCES:
For the State:

Andrew J. Ryan , Jr., E sq., Solicitor General, 
Chatham County, Robert Barker, Esq., Assist­
ant Solicitor General, Chatham County Court­
house, Savannah, Georgia.

For the Defendant:
B. C. Mayfield, E sq., 910 West Broad Street, 

Savannah, Georgia.
Reporter:

Dorothy R. Brown, Court Commsisioner, EJC of 
Ga., 207 Courthouse Building, Savannah, Geor­
gia.

Filed in Office March 14, 1969

/s/  Ben P. Axson
Clerk S.C.C.C. Ga.



11

[fol. 2]
I N D E X

Page
Hearing on Motion by Defense to supress evidence____11-A - 11 EE

Motion by stipulation from State versus Eddie Simmons on
challenge to the array

W itness: Dir. Cr. Redir. Recr. ReRedir. ReRecr.
Mrs. Lanelle Micke 12 20 21 22

Sgt. G. W. Spivey 23 30 33
Doctor Harold Smith 35 37
Officer J. E. Mincey 40 44
Mr. John F. Walters 46 56
Officer A. Hall 58 63
Officer J. R. Goode 64 66 67
Detective B. W. Smith 67 69 71 73 75 78
Doctor Charles Sullenger 79 81

Defendant: (Jury  Out) 84

Defendant: Statement 90
Sgt. G. W. Spivey, Recalled 92

* * * *



12

[fol. 2-a] NOTE: (Hearing on Defense Motion to
Suppress Evidence follow immediately hereafter, 
numbered pages 11-A through 11-EE)

[fol. 3] NOTE: (Selection of jury commenced)
THE COURT: Wait just a moment. Do you want a

panel of forty-eight qualified jurors before you—
MR. MAYFIELD: I would respectfully request it,

Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Call the next twelve and—
MR. MAYFIELD: Your Honor, inasmuch as we have

a space problem here, I would simply wish to have ad­
vantage of the forty-eight but, of course, have them 
available1—not to have them all—

THE COURT: Well, we have sixty here today—
MR. MAYFIELD: Is this the only case to be tried

before a jury, sir?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MAYFIELD: Then I am sure we will have the

requisite number.
THE COURT: Then are you willing to go ahead and

strike this twelve?
MR. MAYFIELD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.

NOTE: (Selection of jury resumed.)
[fol. 4] NOTE: (During examination of prospective

jurors the interrogation proceeded as follows.)
MR. BARKER: Mrs. Weiner, you state that you are

opposed, or conscientiously opposed to capital punish­
ment. Does your answer of ‘yes’ mean that you would 
refuse to impose capital punishment in a case regardless 
of the evidence?

MR. WEINER: No.
MR. BARKER: In other words, you might impose

capital punishment if the evidence so—
MRS. WEINER: And I may not.
MR. BARKER: And you may not. Do you think that

your attitude toward the death penalty would prevent 
you from making an impartial decision as to the defend­
ant’s guilt?



13

MRS. WEINER: No.
THE COURT: She is qualified.
MR. BARKER: Juror upon the prisoner.
MR. MAYFIELD: Swear the juror.

* * * *
MR. BARKER: Mr. Anchors, I would ask you the

same questions, sir. You’ve stated that you were against 
—opposed to capital punishment. Does your answer of 
[fol. 5] ‘yes’ mean that you would refuse to impose capi­
tal punishment in a case regardless of the evidence?

MR. ANCHORS: I believe I would.
MR. BARKER: Do you think that your attitude to­

ward the death penalty would prevent you from making 
an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt?

MR. ANCHORS: (Inaudible)
MR. BARKER: Pardon me, sir?
MR. ANCHORS: I said I am opposed—
MR. BARKER: Would this opposition to the death

penalty affect your decision as to a defendant’s guilt? 
MR. ANCHORS: I think it would.
MR. BARKER: I would ask that he be stricken for

cause, sir.
THE COURT: All right; have a seat, Mr. Anchors.

*  *  *  *

NOTE: (Jury selection completed)
THE COURT: Are you all ready to proceed on or

do you want a recess?
MR. BARKER: No, sir, we are ready to proceed.

However, we do want something to appear on the record. 
THE COURT: Take the Jury out.

NOTE: (The jury withdrew from the courtroom.)
[fol. 6] THE COURT: This is the only jury case—

MR. RYAN: Yes, sir. It’s the only case . . .
NOTE: (Announcement to other jurors by the Court

regarding further service.)
* * * *

MR. RYAN: If Your Honor please, I would like to
read into the record the—what took place when juror



14

number 40, Mr. Alvin W. Anchors, Senior was being 
asked the voir dire questions by the Clerk. It appears 
in answer to question number four, “Are you conscien­
tiously opposed to capital punishment?”, the juror an­
swered “Yes”. Thereafter, when he was put upon the 
State the State propounded first, question number one, 
“Mr. Anchors, does your answer of ‘yes’ to the capital 
punishment question mean that you would refuse to im­
pose capital punishment in a case regardless of the evi­
dence?” The juror answered “Yes”. Question number 
two by the State, “Do you think that your attitude to­
ward the death penalty would prevent you from making 
an impartial decision as to a defendant’s guilt?” To 
this question the juror answered “Yes.” The State then 
requested the Court to excuse the juror for cause. The 
[fol. 7] juror—juror was excused by the Court for cause.

MR. MAYFIELD: If Your Honor please, may the
record further reflect that defense counsel objects to the 
exclusion of any witnesses conscientiously—

UNIDENTIFIED: Any ‘juror’—
MR. MAYFIELD: I’m sorry, sir,—any jurors who

are conscientiously opposed to capital punishment—and 
further qualify that statement, Your Honor . . . the 
questions that were propounded to the juror by the State, 
we object to the witness (sic) being excused on those 
grounds.

THE COURT: Let’s see now. There were two or
three jurors who stated that they were conscientiously 
opposed to capital punishment which the Court did not 
disqualify.

MR. MAYFIELD: That’s correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No questions were asked them by any­

one, so are you taking that as to those—they were not 
disqualified. There was only one juror—
[fol. 8] MR. MAYFIELD: My objection, Your Honor,
is strictly to Mr. Anchors—I believe his name was—Mr. 
Anchors—

THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MAYFIELD: Yes, sir. That’s why I—I inter­

pose my exception to his disqualification only.
THE COURT: All right.



15

MR. RYAN: I would like it also to appear that juror
number 39, Mrs. Hilda P. Weiner—when she was asked 
question number four by the Clerk of the voir dire ques­
tions, “Are you conscientiously opposed to capital pun­
ishment?” Mrs. Weiner answered “Yes”, she was; how­
ever, upon response to the question asked by the State 
whether or not this attitude of her’s would prevent her 
from making an impartial decision she said it would 
not and she was accepted by the State, sir.

THE COURT: As I recall, her answer to the ques­
tion was whether or not her feelings toward capital pun­
ishment were such that she would just automatically—

MR. RYAN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: —refuse to impose the death penalty

[fol. 9] regardless of the evidence, and her answer to 
that was that it would not.

MR. RYAN: Yes, sir, so we—so the State accepted
her as a juror, sir.

THE COURT: . . . the defendant would have no
objections to Mrs. Weiner being on the jury—

MR. MAYFIELD: We would take our chances with 
Mrs. Weiner, sir.

THE COURT: I thought so.
MR. RYAN: But what I wanted to appear was that

Mr. Anchors was not excused for being opposed to capi­
tal punishment, in principle, but he was excused by the 
Court for the reason that he said that would affect his 
decision as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner.

THE COURT: The Court took the position that he
would not have been an impartial juror.

* * * *
[fol. 11] NOTE: (The Jury returned to the jury box)
NOTE: (Witnesses sworn and sequestered. Opening

statement presented by the State and waived by the 
defense.)

*■ * * *



16

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA 
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta

May 29, 1969

I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the 
entire record in Georgia Supreme Court Case No. 25163, 
William Henry Furman v. The State, consists of consecu­
tively numbered pages 1 through 425, and that the first 
213 consecutively numbered pages hereto attached con­
stitute Part One of two parts of the said copy of the 
said record—as appears from the records and files of 
this office.

Witness my signature and the seal of the said Court 
hereto affixed the day and year above written.

[SEAL]

,/s>J Henry H. Cobb 
Clerk



17

[fol. 12] MR. BARKER: Mrs. Micke, please.
MRS. LANELL MICKE, having been first duly sworn, 

took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q Would you state your name for the record, please?
A Mrs. Lanell Micke.
Q Mrs. Micke, were you the wife of Mr. William 

Micke?
A Yes.
Q When did Mr. William die?
A August the 11th, 1967.
Q Now, Mrs. Micke, I know it’s difficult, but I’ll ask 

you to keep your voice up so this last gentleman in the 
jury box can hear and understand. Back on the 11th of 
August, 1967 where were you living?

A 508 West 63rd.
Q Is that area—or is that home located here in Sa­

vannah, Chatham County, Georgia?
A Yes, it is.
Q Who was living in the house with you?
A My husband, myself, and five children.
Q And what are the ages of the children?
A Thirteen, twelve, five—and I had one, she was fiif- 

teen at the time—she is not there now—let me start 
again; fifteen, thirteen, twelve, five, and a year old.

Q Do you have one son named Jimmie?
A Yes.

[fol. 13] Q Is Jimmie a chronic sleep-walker?
A Well, he used to be; yes.
Q And how old was Jimmie on August the 11th, 1967?
A He was eleven.
Q He was eleven. In the early morning hours of Au­

gust the 11th, 1967 between 2:00 and 2:30 where were 
the children?

A Jimmie was sleeping in the back bedroom across 
from the kitchen and the other two girls were in the mid­
dle bedroom and I had the baby in the room with me.



18

Q At that time how old was Mr. Micke?
A He was twenty-nine.
Q And where was Mr. Micke employed?
A He was with the Coastguard.
Q United States Coastguard?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he have another job to supplement his income?
A Yes, he had just started to work at the Tiffany 

Lounge that night.
Q What time did he arrive home that night?
A Around 12:00 o’clock.
Q Had you and Mr. Micke retired for the night?
A Yes we had.
Q Had you gone to sleep yet?
A No.

[fol. 14] Q Between 2:00 and 2:30 was there a dis­
turbance in the house?

A Yes, there was.
Q Did Mr. Micke express any idea of what caused the 

disturbance?
A Well, we both said that it was probably Jimmie—
Q Sleep-walking again?
A Yes.
Q As a result of this what did Mr. Micke do?
A Well, at the first sound we didn’t do anything. We 

just, you know, lay in the bed, and I guess maybe five 
minutes passed and we heard another sound, sounded like 
the same identical sound.

Q Where—from what area of your house was the 
sound coming?

A From toward the dining room and kitchen.
Q From the dining room and kitchen area?
A Yes.
Q Did Mr. Micke get up to investigate?
A After the second noise, yes.
Q And what route would he take from your bedroom 

to the kitchen area?
A Well, he went out our bedroom door into the living 

room and from the living room into the dining room and 
from the dining room into the kitchen.



19

[fol. 15] Q Did you hear Mr. Micke make any state­
ment as he approached the kitchen area?

A Well, as he went into the dining room I heard him 
say, “All right, Jimmie, let’s go back to bed.”

Q ‘All right, Jimmie, let’s go back to bed.’?
A Yes.
Q What did you hear from then on, Mrs. Micke?
A Oh, seems like a couple of seconds passed and I heard 

—seems like his footsteps quickened.
Q Mr. Micke’s footsteps quickened?
A Yes.
Q All right.
A And then all of a sudden I just heard a real loud 

sound and he screamed.
Q Did you then go into the kitchen?
A No, I did not, I ran into the bedroom, my daughters’ 

bedroom. I could run through the bathroom into my 
daughters’ bedroom and I got my children and I got them 
all into my bedroom and we started screaming for Mr. 
Dozier and Johnny.

Q Now, Mr. Dozier and Johnny lived next door. Is 
that correct?

A Right.
Q Did they come over?
A They came over shortly after that. I guess we had 

[fol. 16] to wake them all up and, you know, took them 
a few minutes to—

Q Were the police called?
A Yes. I called the police.
Q Were they called immediately?
A Just as soon as I got Mr. Dozier up and he came 

out of his house I got on the phone and called the police.
Q And how long would you say it took the police 

officers to arrive?
A I’m not sure; just a very few minutes.
Q Did Mr. Micke die as a result of this—
A Yes, he did.
Q —gun shot? Now,—describe to the jury, Mrs. 

Micke, how the back of the house was set up. If I were 
to go into the back of the house what would I first enter 
when I walked up on the steps?



20

A Small screened in porch.
Q Does the screened in porch enclose the porch en­

tirely?
A Yes, it does.
Q Is there a screen door on the porch?
A Yes.
Q Is there a latch on the screen door?
A Yes.
Q Was there a tear prior to this on the screen door on 

[fol. 17] the back porch?
A Yes, there was,
Q Do you know whether or not the screen door was 

locked that night when you went to bed?
A I am not sure that the door was locked, the screen 

door.
Q To gain entry to the back porch would it be neces­

sary to open the screen door?
A Yes, it would.
Q Was the back door to the kitchen locked?
A Yes, it was.
Q What kind of door was this, Mrs, Micke?
A It was a wooden door, just a normal wooden door 

is all I can tell you.
Q Normal wooden door—no glass in the—in the door?
A No.
Q Is there a window that goes out onto the porch?
A Yes,
Q Is there anything—
MR. MAYFIELD: Your Honor, I’m going to have to 

object to Mr. Barker leading this witness.
MR. BARKER: May it please the Court, to ask if

there’s a window on the porch I don’t see—
THE COURT: I don’t think that’s a leading question.

Go ahead.
[fol. 18] Q Was there anything in this window at that 
time?

A Yes, I had a piece of—fan sitting in the window 
that we had been using. It wasn’t a window fan. It was 
just a fan that’s been setting on a stand and it wasn’t 
on the stand any more and I just had it braced . . . .

Q Did you have any other articles on the back porch?



21

A I had a washing machine right behind the window.
Q Where was the washing machine sitting—or setting 

in relation to the window?
A It was setting right behind the window, just to the 

left of the door that goes out onto the porch.
Q Did you ever have an opportunity after this to look 

at that window and the fan to see if anything had been 
disturbed?

A Yes.
Q Was—had anything been disturbed?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what the condition was when 

you saw it?
A Yes. My washing machine had been pulled out from 

the wall where someone could get behind it, looked like, 
and the fan had been slipped over to the left of the window.

Q How far—you say the fan had been slipped over to 
[fob 19] the left in the window?

A Well, from the inside it would have been to the left; 
from the outside to the right.

Q How far from the window is the kitchen door?
A It’s not very—I can just measure . . . just shortly— 

I don’t know just exactly.
Q Could a normal size person reach in through the 

window and unlock the door?
A Yes.
Q What kind of lock was that on the back door?
A Just a lock on the door—knob and—I think, I’m not 

sure.
NOTE: (A juror signified that she wished to speak.)

MR. BARKER: Mrs. Weiner—you would have to
address the Court, the Judge—Mrs. Weiner would like 
to know if she could ask a question.

THE COURT: What is the question?
JUROR MRS. WEINER: I’m just curious to know

why Mrs. Micke didn’t go see what the disturbance was 
in the kitchen. I mean she said she took her children back 
into the bedroom and—did you remain there?

THE WITNESS: Well, when I got my children and
all, the first thought—I knew somebody was in the house 
at that time because I heard my husband scream and I



22

[fol. 20] got my children in there where—I was afraid 
there was someone else in the house and I got them up 
there where they wouldn’t be harmed, and then we started 
screaming for Mr. Dozier to get over there because I knew 
we couldn’t take care of anyone that was in the house. We 
didn’t have a gun or anything.

MR. BARKER: Witness with you.

CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY MR. MAYFIELD:
Q Mrs. Micke, you do not know who the individual 

may have made entry into your house, do you?
A No, I don’t.
Q And you are not in position to testify that William 

Henry Furman, defendant on trial today, was the individ­
ual who entered your house, can you?

A I cannot.
Q Did you, Mrs. Micke, hear a door slam prior to the 

sound, the loud sound you heard you testified to on direct 
examination?

A No, I did not.
Q You did not hear a door slam?
A No, I didn’t,
Q But I believe you testified on direct examination 

that your door is a solid door. Is this correct?
A That’s right.

[fol. 21] Q It has no mirror in the center—or near the 
top?—

A No.
Q It’s a solid plywood door?
A Right.
MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q Mrs. Furman—I mean, Mrs. Micke, I’m sorry—had 

you ever seen the defendant, William Henry Furman, 
prior to this date?



23

A Not that I know of.
Q Whose responsibility would it be to have work done 

on the washing machine?
A Pardon me—Pm—
Q Whose responsibility would it be if the washing 

machine were to break down to call somebody to have 
them fix it?

A I would.
Q Would—had you had any work done on the washing 

machine prior to this night?
A No.
Q Would the defendant Furman have had any rea­

son at any time to be in or about your back porch or 
house?

A No.
MR. BARKER: You can come down, ma’am.
THE COURT: Let me ask you one question: this loud

noise that you heard, what did it sound like?
[fol. 22] THE WITNESS: Well, I thought somebody 
had hit him with something. I didn’t know what it was. 
It was just a real loud sound.

THE COURT: Have you ever heard a gun shot—?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Did this resemble a shot—?
THE WITNESS: No, it did not. I didn’t even think

it was a gun shot.
THE COURT: All right.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY MR. MAYFIELD:
Q . . .  Your Honor—just one other question: you said 

the sound that you heard, Mrs. Micke, did not resemble 
the sound of a gun shot?

A I didn’t think it was a gun shot. It was just a real 
loud sound like somebody had hit him with something. I 
was just a real loud cracking sound.

Q Could it have been the sound of a door closing?
A No.
Q It did not?



24

A That was no door closing that I heard; no.
Q But you definitely do not think it was a gun shot?
A Well, I wasn’t sure. It just—to me right at the 

time it didn’t sound like a gun shot.
Q Yes. Thank you, ma’am.
MR. BARKER: You may step down.

NOTE: (The witness withdrew)
[fol. 23] MR. BARKER: Sergeant Spivey, please.

*  *  *  *

SERGEANT G. W. SPIVEY, Having been first duly 
sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q You are Sergeant G. W. Spivey, Savannah Police 

Department?
A Yes, I am.
Q Sergeant Spivey, were you so employed on the 11th 

day of August, 1967?
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q On about the 11th day of August, 1967 at approxi­

mately 2 :23 A.M. did you get a call to 508 West 63rd?
A Yes, I did.
Q When you arrived at the scene describe to the Court 

and to the jury what you did.
A I pulled up in front of the house and I was met by 

Mr. Dozier, who lives next door, and tried to find out 
from him what the complaint was. I had not learned 
from my radio—we didn’t know. We just knew there was 
a disturbance there of some type. The lady on the phone 
was rather hysterical. We couldn’t get the straight of it. 
I pulled up in front of the house and Mr. Dozier told me 
that there was someone in the house that had broken into 
[fol. 24] the house—that’s what he was able to learn—or 
. . . was told to me. I tried the front door and it was 
locked and I couldn’t get in through the front door. I



25

ran around to the back and went in through a screened 
porch—the screen door was open and the kitchen door was 
closed, but unlocked. I thurned the door knob and, of 
course, the door came open. And I was told by Mr. Dozier 
and his own son that someone was still in the house, or 
whoever was in there was in the house at that time, and 
the lights were off in the back of the house. I shined a 
flashlight into the kitchen and I saw the—I saw a body 
laying in the floor.

Q Now how did you get your beam of the flashlight 
into the kitchen?

A I opened the door.
Q Was the door locked or unlocked?
A The door was unlocked, but closed.
Q But closed. All right. Continue.
A Thinking that somebody was in the house I crouched 

just for a moment outside the door with my flashlight off 
trying to see—I couldn’t see into the house or what was, 
too much,—the dights were off in the back. After I shined 
the light in there I saw a man lying on the floor with a 
lage puddle of blood around his head, around the shoulder 
and his head area. I continued on into the house then, on 
[fob 25] the floor, checked the man’s pulse, breathing, 
what-have-you. Still believing it was someone else in the 
house other than him, or other than his wife in the front 
room, I crawled on the floor through the rooms to check 
and I found nobody in the house other than his wife and 
children. They were locked up in a front room, front 
bedroom.

Q At this time did you return to the kitchen?
A I did.
Q Did. you check Mr. Micke’s vital signs?
A I did again, the second time, after I found the house 

was clear.
Q At this time what was his condition?
A I could detect no pulse whatsoever and no breath— 

breathing or nothing. From all appearances to me the man 
was dead at that time.

Q Did other officers arrive on the scene about that 
time?

A Yes, sir. After I had cheeked the man the second 
time officers came to the front of the house. I walked



26

through the house to open the door in the front, to let 
them in the front. I was only about a block, or two blocks, 
when the call came in, so I—I wasn’t dispatched on the 
[fob 26] call but I went there, and this is the reason the 
officers were a little delayed in getting there that were 
sent on the call. I was there, oh, a good two or three 
minutes, or four minutes, before they arrived.

Q Did you then request that photographs be made and 
the area around the back porch and kitchen area of the 
house be dusted for fingerprints?

A Yes. The first thing I told the Officer who arrived 
at the front was to call an ambulance, which they did 
right away. After the ambulance arrived, the ambulance 
attendants and myself again checked the man on the 
floor—no disturbance other than check the vital signs— 
the body was not moved or anything else. At this point, 
through our closer examination of the man, it was deter­
mined by us, the best we could, that he was dead at that 
time so the fingerprint identification people were called 
out there for pictures, prints and the kitchen area was 
sealed off and officers posted there to keep everyone out.

Q All right, sir. Did you examine more thoroughly 
then the back porch area of the house?

A Yes, sir, I did.
Q How do you make entry onto the back porch?
A There are two or three little steps as you go up to 

the screened door. The screened door opens onto a small 
[fol. 27] back porch area and then the kitchen door itself 
is there, a wooden door.

Q All right. I show you a picture marked State’s 
Exhibit 1 and ask can you identify that picture?

A Yes, sir, this is front—excuse me—this is the front 
of the house where this man lived.

Q And is this a true representation of the appearance 
of that house at the time you arrived there?

A Yes, sir, it is. His wife was in this room r ig h t-  
front bedroom right there, by that window.

Q All right. I show you a picture marked State’s Ex­
hibit 2 and ask you what does that represent?

A This is the back of the house.
Q Are these the steps that lead into the back porch?



27

A Yes, sir, it is.
Q What is this door?
A This is a screened door leading onto the small 

screened porch on the back.
Q All right, sir. I show you a picture marked State’s 

Exhibit 3 and ask what does that represent?
A This is the same picture a little closer up of the 

same screened porch and the back door, screened door 
leading into the back porch.

Q All right, sir. I show you a picture marked State’s 
Exhibit 4 and ask you what does that represent?
[fob 28] A This picture is looking, as you’re standing 
on the screened porch, looking back outside of the same 
screened door on that small porch.

Q And what is this up in here in the top of the door, or 
middle part of the door?

A The screen latch, of course unlatched with a hole 
punched in the screen by the latch.

Q Now, right next to the latch, did you look at that 
area closely, that hole, to determine whether it was a 
fresh hole or an old rusted hole?

A I didn’t examine it closely, the hole, to tell one 
way or another.

Q All right, sir. I show you a picture marked State’s 
Exhibit 5 and ask you what that represents?

A This is the kitchen door leading into the kitchen 
from the screened porch area.

Q All right, sir. I show you a picture marked State’s 
Exhibit 6 and ask you what that represents?

A This is a hole that we found in the door, in the 
kitchen door, apparently made by a bullet fired through 
the door from the outside, as the powder burns were on 
the outside of the door and the splintered wood as a bul­
let would make, was on the inside of the door.

Q I show you a picture marked State’s Exhibit 7 and 
[fol. 29] ask you what that represents?

A Yes, sir, this is a picture of the splintered wood 
on the inside of the door; would be the exit of a bullet from 
this side, meaning the inside of the house, coming into 
the house.



28

Q All right, sir. To go back just a moment, State’s 
Exhibit 5, what is this just to the right of the back door, 
that you have described as the back door?

A The washing machine was setting by the door lead­
ing into the kitchen—

Q Was this washing machine dusted for fingerprints?
A Yes, sir, it was.
Q By whom?
A By Officer Mincey.
Q Were you present?
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q Ishow you a picture marked State’s Exhibit 8 and 

ask you what that represents?
A This is the body of the man lying on the floor that 

I saw as I saw it when I come in the back door.
Q Is this the body of Mr. William Micke?
A Yes, it is.
Q Do all of these—are all of these pictures true rep­

resentations of the scene as it appeared when you arrived 
on your investigation, August the 11th, 1967?
[fol. 30] A Exactly.

MR. BARKER: Like to introduce State’s Exhibits
1 through 8 into evidence.

MR. MAYFIELD: If Your Honor please, I would
like to . . . Mr. Spivey questions, before I would agree to 
admission of these.

THE COURT: All right.

CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY MR. MAYFIELD:
Q Were you present, Mr.—Sergeant Spivey, when 

these photos were made?
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q And you saw the photographer make these—
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q —photos?
MR. BARKER: At this time, sir—
THE COURT: Any objections?
MR. MAYFIELD: No objections, Your Honor.



29

NOTE: (States’ Exhibits 1 through 8, pictures, ad­
mitted in evidence.)

MR. BARKER: —so we would have a little continu­
ity I’d like to pass—just take a couple of minutes to pass 
the pictures through to the jury.
NOTE: (Jurors examined pictures.)

MR. BARKER: Witness with you.

[fol. 31] FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY MR. MAYFIELD:
Q Mr. Spivey, were you with the group of officers who 

apprehended the defendant here?
A No, sir, I was not.
Q Now, you have no knowledge as to how the entry 

was made in this place, do you?
A No, sir, I—
Q —or if entry was made, do you?
A No, sir, I don’t.
Q You have no knowledge, personal knowledge, as to 

who actually shot Mr. Micke, do you?
A As to seeing it; no, sir.
Q Now, let us direct our attention to this door, Mr. 

Spivey, the back door to Mr. Micke’s house. This is a 
solid plywood door. Is this correct?

A Yes, sir, it is.
Q About a couple of—about an inch thick. Is this 

right?
A No, sir, it would not be an inch thick; it’s about a 

quarter of an inch thick.
Q About a quarter of an inch thick?
A Uh-huh.
Q Now, from your investigation could you determine 

whether or not this door was closed before the bullet 
made entry penetrating this door?
[fol. 32] A I don’t quite follow you.

Q I am saying, sir, could you determine from your 
investigation whether or not this door was closed—was a 
straight shot through a door—that is, the bullet hole



30

through the door or was it a slant—could you determine 
whether the door was open or closed when the entry was 
made, the bullet entry was made?

A From appearances to me the door was closed.
Q Closed?
A Right.
Q Now did you at any time have occasion—occasion 

to interrogate the defendant, William Henry Furman?
A I did not.
Q Was there anyone on the premises at the time you 

arrived to conduct your investigation?
A At the house?
Q That’s right, sir.
A Mr. Dozier, next door, and his son was in the front 

yard when I arrived.
Q I believe you stated that it was your information 

that the assailant or the person who had perpetrated this 
offense was inside the house. Is this correct?

A This is what I was told by the Doziers.
[fol. 33] Q Now, with reference to this back porch, Mr. 
Spivey, was it a very short back porch—that is, only a 
few feet from the steps into the back door?

A Yes, I would say seven or eight feet, about like that.
Q It was a considerable sized back porch?
A No, it was—it was small. To me, a small back 

porch.
Q Seven or eight feet in length or in width?
A In length.
Q In length?
A Uh-huh.
Q Now in width, sir, how many feet would you say? 

Two feet?
A No, it was larger than that.
Q Little larger than that?
A Probably six, six feet in width.
Q And you have no knowledge of anything that Wil­

liam Henry Furman may have done toward this—at least 
entering the house, do you?

A No.
MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you.



31

Q Just one other question: looking at picture marked 
State’s Exhibit 7, is that the inside of the door—the in­
side of the door where the bullet was fired?
[fol. 34] A. Yes, this is the inside.

Q What type of lock does that have on it?
A A snap lock.
Q Is that one of those kind where you just have a 

regular door knob with a little twist on it?
A Yes, sir, it is. You turn it and you can shut the 

door and it will lock with this—if you lock it before you 
close the door and as you lock the door it will stay locked.

Q All right. Right over here (indicating), what is 
this?

A This is a fan placed in a window right by the back 
door, a few inches.

Q If you were to go directly out that window, what 
would you touch or see directly outside the window?

A The washing machine shown in one of the other 
photographs.

Q State’s Exhibit 3—
A Yes, sir.
Q I meant 5, rather.
A Five.
MR. RYAN: Five.
MR. BARKER: All right. You can come down. 

NOTE: (The witness withdrew)
MR. BARKER: We’d like to call one witness out

[fol. 35] of line. Doctor Smith is here, sir.
Doctor Smith, please.

« » # «

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BARKER:



32

DOCTOR HAROLD SMITH, having been first duly 
sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BARKER:
Q You are Doctor Harold M. Smith?
A Yes, sir.
Q Doctor Smith, you are a medical doctor?
A Yes.
MR. BARKER: The defense stipulates that the doctor

is qualified as an expert in his field.
Q Doctor, what is your official capacity with Chatham 

County?
A Coroner.
Q Doctor, back on the 11th day of August, 1967, did 

you examine the body of William Joseph Micke, Junior?
A Yes, sir.
Q At the time you examined him what—was he alive 

or deceased?
A He was deceased.
Q Were you able to determine the cause of death, 

Doctor?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you tell the Court and the jury what caused 

the death of William Joseph Micke, Junior?
[fob 36] A There was a pistol wound which entered the 
upper chest right near the midline on the right hand side. 
The bullet went through the lung producing severe hem­
orrhage, was found under the skin in the back.

Q Who removed this bullet from the body of William 
Micke, Junior, sir?

A I did, sir.
Q And what did you do with that bullet?
A The bullet was turned over to Detective B. W. 

Smith, whose signature is on this card.
Q Was the bullet and the wound produced thereby the 

cause of the death of William Joseph Micke, Junior?
A Yes, sir. There were no powder burns noted.

* » * *



33

[fol. 39] THE COURT: The bullet you turned over to
Mr. Smith—was that the same bullet that you had taken 
from the body of Mr. Micke?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you, sir.

[fol. 40] OFFICER J. E. MINCEY, having been first 
duly sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BARKER:
Q You are Officer J. E. Mincey?
A Yes, sir.
Q Officer Mincey, you are with the Savannah Police 

Department?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you so employed on the 11th day of August, 

1967?
A Yes, sir.

NOTE: (The qualifications of the witness as a finger­
print expert were stipulated by the defense.)

Q Officer Mincey, back on the 11th day of August, 
1967 were you called to a residence of 508 West 63rd 
Street?

A Yes, sir.
Q Approximately what time did you arrive?
A I arrived approximately 3:00 A. M.
Q What was your purpose in being there, sir?
A I was called and advised that there had been a 

burglary and a man had been shot,
Q All right, sir. Did you take pictures at the scene? 
A A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Did you also dust the scene for fingerprints?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Were you able to find any latent fingerprints on 

[fol. 41] the back porch of 508 West 63rd Street?
A Yes, sir.



34

Q In what portion of the back porch did you find the 
fingerprints?

A There was a washing machine setting on the back 
porch under a window.

*  *  *  *

[fol. 43] Q And what did your comparison of the 
known prints of the defendant, James (sic) Henry Fur­
man—William Henry Furman and the latent prints on 
card marked State’s Exhibit 10 and 11 show?

A That the right thumb of the known print and a 
part of the latent print that came off the top of the 
washing machine were one and the same.

Q So the print, the known prints of the defendant 
matched up with the prints removed from the washing 
machine. Is that correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q All right, sir. What did you then do with cards 

marked State’s Exhibits 10, 11 and 12?
A I put these in an envelope and sent them to the 

F. B. I.
*  *  *  *

[fol. 46] JOHN F. WALTERS, having been first duly 
sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q Please state your name and address,
A My name is John F. Walters, that’s W-a-l-t-e-r-s. 

I live in Oxenhill, Maryland.
Q By whom are you employed?
A By the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q Where are your official headquarters?
A In the Identification Building in Washington, D. C.
Q And what is your official title, sir?
A Fingerprint Examiner.
Q And what are your official duties?
A Well, official duties consist mainly of examining 

lifts, photographs and negatives for latent prints, proc­



35

essing various articles for latent prints, comparing latent 
prints with the inked prints of known individuals—the 
findings are then reported and, if requested, I will testify 
as to the results of my examination. Also, I process 
[fol. 47] friction ridge skin tissue of un-known deceased 
persons in an attempt to obtain either inked prints or 
photograph of the fingerprints. I then compare these 
prints with the known prints of known individuals in an 
attempt to aid in the identification. I also aid in the 
training of special agents of the F. B. I., as well as 
other law enforcement agencies and I, occasionally, will 
fingerprint people who, because of deformities or infirmi­
ties, cannot be fingerprinted in the normal manner. I 
also train other individuals how to do the same,

Q How much experience have you had in fingerprint 
work?

A Twenty and a half years.
* * * *

[fol. 50] Q Did you examine or process the Exhibits?
A I did examine them, yes, sir.
Q And what was the result?
A That upon examining Exhibit 10 and 11 that I 

determined that they were latent prints, upon the visible 
and the lifts present thereon and that there were four 
latent prints. These latent prints I compared with the 
inked prints appearing on Exhibit 12 and I determined 
that the latent prints were made by fingers that made 
the inked prints that.—latent prints appearing on Ex­
hibits 10 and 11 were made by fingers that were made 
—the inked prints appearing on Exhibit 12.

Q Were the latent prints photographed?
A Yes, they were.
Q Do you have the photographs and the negatives 

with you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Have you seen these inked fingerprints? State’s 

Exhibit 12?
A Yes. I had these in my possession at one time. 

That’s when I had the photographs and negatives.
Q And this was in your headquarters in Washington.



36

[fol. 51] Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Did you compare the latent prints with the finger­

prints appearing on State’s Exhibit 12?
A I did.
Q What was the result of your comparison?
A That the latent prints on Exhibit 11-—there are 

two lifts, and on each lift there is a latent print and 
that one of these latent prints on Exhibit No. 11 was 
made by the left thumb appearing on Exhibit No. 12 
which is a card bearing, or a piece of paper bearing 
the name of William Henry Furman, and the other latent 
print appearing on the second lift from Exhibit No. 11 
was made by the finger that made the right thumb print 
appearing on Exhibit No. 12, and referring to Exhibit 
No. 12 on one of the lifts, there are three lifts present 
on Exhibit No. 10, two latent fingerprints appear on 
one of these lifts and those two fingerprints were made 
by the same fingers that made the right middle finger 
and the right ring finger appearing on Exhibit No. 12.

* *

[fol. 56] CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MAYFIELD:
Q I certainly want to ask you just a few questions 

for my own . . .
A Yes, sir.
Q I believe you stated that there was a—ridge ar­

rangement that travels . . . that’s formed in the—before 
the child is born and follows throughout, the person 
throughout life?

A That is correct.
Q Now—
A This is persistence—
Q Beg pardon, sir?
A This is persistent, yes.
Q Yes. Now, I want to find—that if there are any 

possible instances wherein you have a partial print—not 
a whole entire print, but a partial print, that ever com­
pared with some other known prints?



37

A Not in my experience I have never seen it and, of 
course, in various books and such in my studies that I 
have never heard of it, either. This is based upon a 
number of ridge characteristics that the identifications 
are affected. It is not a simple—one characteristic, but 
a number of characteristics that the identification is af­
fected on so far as fingerprints are concerned. And so 
far as the area that is concerned it makes no difference, 
[fol. 57] You can compare a fingerprint with a footprint 
and still the ridge arrangement would not be the same.

Q In truth and fact, are you saying—now, I want to 
get it straight in my own mind—a partial print would 
be just as conclusive as far as identification purposes as 
a whole print?

A That is correct.
MR, MAYFIELD: Thank you. No further questions

at this time.
*  *  *  *

[fol. 58] OFFICER A. HALL, having been first duly 
sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q You are Officer A. Hall, Savannah Police Depart­

ment?
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Officer Hall, were you so employed on or about the 

11th day of August, 1967?
A Yes, sir, I was.
Q On or about the 11th day of August, 1967 after 

the hour of 2:30 A. M. did you also answer a call to 
508 West 63rd Street?

A Yes, sir, I did.
Q When you arrived on the scene did you see the 

dead body of Mr. William Micke?
A I did.
Q As a result of this did you and other officers scan 

out in the area to search?
A Yes, sir.



38

Q Where did you go? Where did you station your­
self?

A Southwest of the house that the murder happened 
in.

Q All right, sir. Now describe the house at 508 West 
63rd, between there and Temple Street is there anything 
[fol. 59] between?

A A wooded area.
Q A wooded area?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where did you park your automobile?
A I was on Belk Street at the very west end of it 

at a dead end of the wooded area.
Q And how close is that to Temple Street?
A Half a block.
Q After you stationed yourself at this point did you 

leave your engine running?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you turn your lights off?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see anyone emerge from the woods?
A Yes, sir. I saw a silhouette of a subject come out 

of the woods. He was wearing a dirty white shirt with 
the shirt out of his pants. It was a light shirt.

Q Approximately what size was this person?
A Approximately six feet all. He was thin—built on 

the—on my order.
Q Was he colored or white?
A Colored subject.
Q Was he male—or female?
A Male.

[fol. 60] Q What happened when the subject came out 
of the wooded area?—Or first of all, was this from the 
direction of 508 West 63rd Street?

A I didn’t understand you. Would you repeat—
Q Did he come from the direction of 508 West 63rd 

Street?
A Yes, sir, the house was north of where I was at 

and he came from a northerly direction out of the woods 
going south.



39

Q All right. What happened when he came out of 
the woods?

A When he came out of the woods he was walking 
nonchalantly and as—he heard the engine of my auto­
mobile—he saw me—-we saw each other at just about 
the same time—he started walking faster and then he 
broke into a run. It was raining, however.

Q As a result of this what did you do?
A I pursued him and I called for other units to come 

into the area and Officer Waters was the first one to 
come to me, and Officer Prouse, he came south of where 
I was at and I lost the subject and I told Officer Prouse 
over the radio that the guy had to be between he and 
myself, you understand, and then Officer Waters and I 
got out of the automobiles and we started walking, fol­
lowing his foot tracks that the subject had left and they 
[fol. 61] led us to a house at 5020 Temple Street.

Q Did you go up to the house at 5020 Temple Street?
A Yes, sir, we did.
Q Who was the owner of this home, or who—
A Mr. James Furman.
Q Was he the uncle of the defendant?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you talk to James Furman at that time?
A I did. We told him that we were in pursuit of a 

fellow and foot tracks led us into his yard. I asked him 
did anybody come into his house. He said ‘no’, but he 
said, “I did hear a noise in my back yard as if some­
thing had turned over or something fell over in the back 
yard.’

Q Did you get permission from him at that time to 
search the area?

A Yes, sir, we did.
Q Did you search into the back and side of the house?
A Yes, sir. We followed the foot tracks. They went 

around on the south side of the house—they went around 
in the rear and half-way of the house on the north side 
and then they—there was a can or someting on a little 
shelf he had in the back yard that had been turned over, 
you understand. This was the noise that the uncle heard,



40

[fol. 62] and the foot tracks led under the house half­
way on the north side.

Q Did you shine your flashlights under the house?
A Yes, sir, we did.
Q Did you see anyone under the house?
A Yes, sir, we saw a subject under the house.
Q Who was under the house?
A The defendant there.
Q What did the defendant do, if anything, when you 

shined your flashlights on him?
A Well, he was back under the house facing us, you 

understand, so we told him to come out. And just as 
we said ‘come out from under the house’ he reached as 
if he was reaching for his back pocket and I pulled my 
pistol and I pointed it at him and I told him to come out 
and don’t make any move and I reached my hand to him 
—asked him to take my hand and he reached for my 
hand—I just pulled him out from under the house.

Q The person that you pulled out from under the 
house, is that the same person that you saw emerge from 
the woods?

A Yes, sir.
Q When you pulled him out from under the house, 

was be advised that he was under arrest?
[fol. 63] A Yes, sir.

Q Was a search made of the individual at that time?
A Yes, sir, it was.
Q By whom was the search made?
A John Goode.
Q That’s Officer J. R. Goode?
A Yes. sir.
Q And what, if anything, did Officer Goode get off of

the defendant?
A He took a .22 caliber pistol off of him.
Q Did you see anyone else out in the area—any civil­

ians out in the area while you were making your search?
A No, sir. No one.
MR. BARKER: Witness with you.



41

Q Now, Mr. Hall, this defendant whom you pulled 
from under the house did not make any statement to 
you, did he?

A No, sir. He did not.
Q And he was not—only thing . . . pursued him be­

cause he came out of the woods—?
A Yes, sir.
Q And at no time did he make any admission to you 

that he had been engaged in a burglary or murder or 
any other statement?
[fol. 64] A No.

MR. MAYFIELD: No further questions.
MR. BARKER: You can come down. Officer J. R.

Goode.
NOTE: (The witness withdrew.)

OFFICER J. R. GOODE, having been first duly sworn, 
took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q You are Officer J. R. Goode, Savannah Police De­

partment?
A Yes, sir.
Q Officer Goode, back on the 11th day of August, 

1967, did you in the company of Officer Hall, Officer 
Waters and Officer Prouse converge on the scene of 5020 
Temple Street?

A Yes, sir.
Q As a result of going to that area did you find a 

person under the house?
A We did.
Q After he was brought out from under the house 

and advised that he was under arrest did you search 
the individual?

A I did.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MAYFIELD:



42

Q What, if anything, did you find on him?
A In his right front pocket I found a .22 caliber 

pistol.
[fol. 65] Q All right, sir. I show you a pistol marked 
State’s Exhibit 9 and ask you if you can identify this 
gun?

A Yes, sir, I can.
Q And how do you identify it, sir?
A Right here I have my initials scratched into the 

weapon and it’s dated—also by the serial number.
Q Was the gun—were there any unspent bullets in 

the gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many?
A There was three live rounds and three that had 

been fired.
Q Had three that had been fired?
A Yes, sir.
MR. BARKER: At this time I would like to intro­

duce the pistol into evidence.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. MAYFIELD: No objection, Your Honor.

NOTE: (State’s Exhibit No. 9, pistol, admitted in evi­
dence. )

Q Officer Goode, at this time you advised him of his 
constitutional rights?

A I did. I read him his constitutional rights.
Q He didn’t make any statement to you at that time? 
A Not at this time, no, sir.

[fol. 66] Q. Did you ask him for his address?
A I did.
Q What was his address?
A 708 Sherman Street.
Q Was this at 708 Sherman Street where you found 

him under the house?
A No, sir; it was 5020 Temple Street he was under 

the house.
MR. BARKER: Witness with you.



43

Q Mr. Goode, did you have occasion to examine the 
premises at 508 West 63rd Street?

A No, sir.
Q You did not?
A No, sir.
Q I believe your testimony is that there were three 

live rounds of ammunition in the pistol. Is that correct? 
A Yes, sir.
Q And three spent?—
A Yes, sir.
Q —rounds? Which means—indicating that there 

were three shots fired. Is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q You didn’t at any time examine the premises at 

508 East (sic) 63rd?
[fol. 67] A I didn’t examine it. I went by there later.

Q Now, let me ask you: this man at no time made 
no admission or statement to you that he had been en­
gaged, or at least had . . . burglarized anyone’s house, 
or anything, did he?

A You mean at this—this night?
Q Yes.
A Not that particular night, no, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: No further questions.
Q, You don’t know—Nothing; no further questions.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BARKER:
Q What did you do with the gun, Officer Goode?
A After I labeled the gun I placed it in a property 

room bag. I sealed it. I put it in a property room drawer 
at Police Headquarters.

MR. BARKER: All right. You can come down, sir.
NOTE: (The witness withdrew.)

* * * *
[fol. 71] NOTE: (Jury withdrew from the court­

room. )

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MAYFIELD:



44

Q Detective Smith, on or about, the 11th day of Au­
gust, 1967, did you interview the defendant, William 
Henry Furman?

A Temporarily—just for a moment or two.
Q Prior to that interview did you advise him of his 

constitutional rights?
A I did.
Q What did you advise him, sir?

[fol. 72] A I advised him ‘before we ask you any ques­
tions you must understand your rights. You have the 
right to remain silent and to refuse to answer any ques­
tions. Anything you do say can and will be used against 
you in a Court of law. You have the right to talk to a 
lawyer for advise before we ask you any questions and 
to have him with you during questioning. If you cannot 
afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you before 
any questions if you wish. If you desire to answer ques­
tions now without a lawyer present you will still have 
the right to stop answering at any time you wish until 
you talk to an attorney.’

Q What did the defendant state in regards to having 
an attorney or wanting an attorney?

A I advised him after I advised him of his rights 
that I had one question I wanted to ask him, and ad- 
advised him ‘you do not have to answer if you don’t wish’ 
—after I advised him of his rights.

Q And what did he say in regards to wanting an at­
torney present?

A He did not want an attorney at that time.
Q Did the defendant make a statement?
A He asked me—
Q No—did he make a statement?

[fol. 73] A Yes.
Q Was that statement made freely and voluntarily 

without hope of reward or fear of punishment held out 
by you or anyone in your presence?

A That’s correct.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BARKER:



45

Q Did you then propound your question?
A I asked him—
Q Go ahead.
A I asked him one question.
Q And what was that question?
A I asked him ‘Did you get in the house?’
Q What was his answer?
A He stated ‘yes’, that he got in the kitchen; that 

the man came in the kitchen, saw him in the kitchen, 
tried to grab him and when he "went out the door the 
man hit the door, slammed the door between them, he 
turned around and fired one shot and run.

MR. BARKER: We submit that the statement was
made freely and voluntarily.

MR. MAYFIELD: Yes, Your Honor—I’d like to ask
Mr. Smith a question.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION 

BY MR. MAYFIELD:
Q Did you further advise this defendant, Mr. Smith, 

that any statement he made could be used against him 
in a Court of law?

A I did.
[fol. 74] MR. RYAN: He said he did.

Q You did not read that a few minutes ago—?
A Yes, sir. I did.
MR. RYAN: Yes, he did.
Q You did?
A I did.
Q Now, let me ask you: with regard to—do you feel 

that this man, in talking to him, he understood what 
you were saying when you advised him of his constitu­
tional rights?

A I asked him did he thoroughly understand it.
Q, And what, if anything, did he say at that time, Mr. 

Smith?
A Pardon?
Q What, if anything, did he say, sir, at that time?
A He said he understood it.
Q Now, did you determine his grade level he had 

attained in school—

j



46

A No, I—
Q —prior to your asking him whether he understood 

his constitutional rights?
A I asked him when I read him this—this pamphlet 

here, did he understand what I had asked him. He said 
he did.

Q So you did not determine from him his degree of 
[fol. 75] intelligence, did you?

A No, I didn’t find out how high he went in school 
or anything.

Q Yes, sir. You cannot positively testify here today 
that this man thoroughly, unequivocably understood what 
you were saying, can you?

A No more than what he answered.
MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you.
MR. BARKER: We submit, sir—
THE COURT: After hearing evidence, I find that

there has been no technical, legal objection sufficient to 
render inadmissible the alleged incriminatory statement 
of the defendant, and I hold as a matter of fact after 
a full and definitive determination from a consideration 
of all the facts that the statements are, and were, volun­
tarily made and, therefore, are admissible both legally 
and factually.

MR. BARKER: Bring in the jury, please.
MR. MAYFIELD: Your Honor, just for the record

I would like to interpose an exception at this point.
THE COURT: Oh, yes.

NOTE: (The jury returned to the jury box.)

[fol. 76] RE RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q Detective Smith, on about the 11th day of August, 

1967 at the Savannah Police barracks did you interview 
the defendant?

A I did.
Q Prior to the interview did you advise the defendant 

of his constitutional rights?
A Yes, sir, I did.



47

Q What did you advise him, sir?
A I advised him ‘Before we ask you any questions 

you must understand your rights. You have the right 
to remain silent and to refuse to answer any questions. 
Anything you do say can and will be used against you 
in a Court of law. You have the right to talk to a law­
yer for advice before we ask you any questions and to 
have him with you during questioning. If you cannot 
afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you before 
any questions if you wish. If you decide to answer any 
questions now without a lawyer present you will still 
have the right to stop answering at any time you wish 
until you talk to a lawyer.’

Q What did he say in respect to wanting a lawyer 
present?

A He did not want a lawyer at that time.
Q Did you ask him if he understood what you had 

just advised him?
[fol. 77] A I asked him ‘Do you thoroughly under­
stand what I have read to you?’ and he stated that he 
did.

Q Did the defendant then make a statement?
A I advised him I had one question I would like to 

ask him.
Q Did he then—
A I asked him one question.
Q Did he make a statement?
A He made a statement.
Q Was that statement made freely and voluntarily 

without hope of reward or fear of punishment held out 
by you or anyone in your presence?

A Yes, sir.
Q What question did you propound to the defendant?
A I asked him did he get inside of the house.
Q And what was his answer?
A He stated yes, that he was in the kitchen; the 

man come in the kitchen, saw him in there and attempted 
to grab him as he went out the door; said the man hit 
the door—instead of catching him, he hit the door, the 
door slammed between them, he turned around and fired 
one shot and ran.

MR. BARKER: Witness with you.



48

Q Mr. Smith, did you reduce this statement, this al­
leged statement to writing?

A No, sir, he would not sign any statement in writ­
ing. .

Q Now, where was this alleged statement made, sir?
A Right inside the station house.
Q At the station house?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, is it not customary that statements that are 

made that may be admissions against the interest of the 
individual usually are reduced to writing?

A I didn’t understand the question.
Q Is it not a common police practice that statements 

or admissions made by individuals accused of crime are 
reduced to writing?

A Well, quite frequently they refuse to give a state­
ment in writing but they will give you a statement orally.

Q Did you make any overture or any attempt to have 
him reduce this to writing or you reduce it to writing 
and have him to acknowledge it?

A I asked him about giving me a written statement 
and he wouldn’t agree to give no written statement at 
that time.

Q Now, during the time this alleged statement was 
made were there any other officers present during this 
[fol. 79] interrogation period?

A Yes, there was.
Q Who were they?
A Officer Goode was one of them.
Q Officer Goode. And who else, sir?
A That’s the only one that I remember as being pres­

ent at the time.
Q But it was not reduced to writing?
A No, sir.
Q Now, he stated he shot backward—is that correct? 

Or shot behind him? I did not quite get the continuity 
of it.

[fol.78] RE RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. MAYFIELD:



49

A Stated—he stated that the man come in the kitch­
en, made a grab for him and missed him as he was going 
out the door and struck the door and the door slammed 
between them; he turned around and fired one time and 
ran.

MR. BARKER: You can come down, sir.
NOTE: (The witness withdrew from the courtroom.)

MR. BARKER: Doctor Sullenger.

DOCTOR CHARLES SULLENGER, having been first 
duly sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR. BARKER:
Q You are Doctor Charles Sullenger of the State 

Crime Lab?
A I am.

[fol. 80] Q What are your duties—your official duties 
at the State Crime Lab—?

A I am Senior Toxicologist in charge of the State 
Crime Laboratory.

MR. BARKER: Let the record show that the defense
stipulates the Doctor’s qualifications as an expert.

Q Doctor, subsequent to the 11th day of August, 1967 
or on the 11th day of August, 1967, was—or were sev­
eral items delivered to you by Detective B. W. Smith of 
the Savannah Police Department?

A They were.
Q I show you a pistol marked State’s Exhibit 9 and 

ask you if you can identify this pistol?
A Yes, sir, I can.
Q I show you an envelope containing a bullet marked 

State’s Exhibit 13 and ask if you can identify that?
A Yes, I can.
Q I show you an envelope marked State’s Exhibit 14 

containing—-open it—containing a shell casing and the 
bullet part of a shell.

A Yes, sir, I can identify that.



50

Q All right, sir. Now, what does this represent? 
State’s Exhibit 14?

A This is a test bullet and a test shell that I fired 
[fol. 81] from this revolver.

Q And what did State’s Exhibit 13 represent?
A It is a .22 caliber lead bullet that had been re­

moved from the body of Mr. Micke.
Q What request for comparison was made of you, 

Doctor Sullenger?
A I was asked to determine, if possible, whether this 

bullet that was removed from the body of Mr. Micke had 
been fired from this particular firearm.

Q Did you run a ballistics comparison?
A I did.
Q What is your expert opinion of the comparison 

that you ran?
A In my opinion this gun did fire the bullet that 

was removed from Mr. Micke’s body.
*  *  *  *

[fol. 84] MR. MAYFIELD: Your Honor please, may
I respectfully request the Court to excuse the jury for 
a—

THE COURT: Take the jury out.
NOTE: (The jury withdrew from the courtroom.)

MR. BARKER: To be sure that the record is clear,
sir, we have submitted Exhibits 1 through 14 for evi­
dence and they have been admitted. Is that correct?

MR. MAYFIELD: They have been admitted, what­
ever—

MR. BARKER: Yes.
MR. MAYFIELD: If Youh Honor please, I would

respectfully ask and would like for the record, to call 
the defendant to the stand to ascertain from him wheth­
er or not, for the record, he wishes to make a sworn or 
unsworn statement or no statement at all.

THE COURT: All right.
* * * *

WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN, Defendant, took the 
stand and made the following statement:



51

MR. MAYFIELD: Now, will you state your name,
please?

THE DEFENDANT: William Henry Furman.
MR. MAYFIELD: And you are the defendant in this

case, are you not?
THE DEFENDANT: Right.

[fol. 85] MR. MAYFIELD: You are charged with the
murder of Mr. William Micke?

THE DEFENDANT: Right.
MR. MAYFIELD: Now, I have conferred with you,

have I not, with regards to whether or not you want to 
make a statement?

THE DEFENDANT: (Inaudible)
MR. MAYFIELD: Please speak for the record, ‘yes’

or ‘no’.
THE DEFENDANT: No, I don’t.
MR. MAYFIELD: No—I said I have conferred with

you, have I not?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: I have talked with you, have I

not?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: I have asked you whether or not

you wanted to make a statement and I have given you 
my advice? . . .  Is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: Now, would you tell the Court

what you advised me—whether or not you wanted to 
make a statement or not?

THE DEFENDANT: No, I don’t.
[fol. 86] MR. MAYFIELD: And you are telling me 
now that you do not wish to make a statement. Is that 
correct?

THE REFENDANT: Right.
MR. MAYFIELD: I have conferred with you and

given you my advice as to whether or not you should or 
should not. Is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: That’s right,
MR. MAYFIELD: And it’s your considered opinion

that you do not want to make a statement?
THE DEFENDANT: That’s right.



52

MR. MAYFIELD: You may come down.
THE COURT: Furman, let me—before you go down,

—under the law, under the law you have a right to make 
an unsworn statement, that is, to tell the jury anything 
you want to tell them with reference to the case.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: It won’t be under oath and nobody

can ask you any questions—
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You can also—you also have the right

if you care to do so, to be sworn just like any other 
witness and can testify in your own behalf. If you are 
[fol. 87] sworn then, of course, you can be asked ques­
tions by your lawyer and the State’s lawyer will have a 
right to cross examine you. Those are two, two rights 
that the defendant has; a right to give an unsworn state­
ment, which nobody can ask you any questions; you have 
a right to be sworn just like any other witness. The law 
gives you those two rights, but as I understand from 
you, you don’t want to make any kind of a statement. 
Is that right? You don’t want to say anything in your 
behalf?

THE DEFENDANT: (No response)
THE COURT: (To Mr. Mayfield) What do you

want to do? You want to talk with him a little bit about 
the thing, some more? I—

MR. MAYFIELD: Yes, Your Honor—
THE COURT: . . . I’ve tried to explain thoroughly

his choice in—I want him to—
MR. MAYFIELD: Now, let me ask—
THE COURT: —thoroughly understand—he can . . .

tell that jury anything he wants to tell them and—
MR. MAYFIELD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: —and no one can question him about

it.
[ofl. 88] MR. MAYFIELD: What we want you to un­
derstand now is, do you thoroughly understand what I’ve 
tried to tell you and w7hat the Court is telling you? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: You understand that? You under­

stand you have a right under the law to make an un-



53

sworn statement to the Court and to the jury and. they 
will give you—give that statement any type of weight 
that they choose to give it. They can believe it in pref­
erence to all the sworn testimony that has been given 
here today. They can also disregard it in its entirety. 
Now, under that statement, if you make an unsworn 
statement, I have no right to ask you any questions— 
neither does Mr. Barker who represents the State, any 
right to ask you any questions. No one can ask you any 
questions. You can go and tell the Court and the jury 
anything that you want to with reference to this case 
and anything else that may bear on this case. But, by 
the same token, you also have the right to make a sworn 
statement. Under that sworn statement I have a right 
[fol. 89] to examine you; Mr. Barker has a right to 
cross examine you. Now, do you thoroughly understand 
this?

THE DEFENDANT: (Nodded affirmatively)
MR. MAYFIELD: Now, let me ask you also: how

far did you go in school?
THE DEFENDANT: Sixth grade.
MR. MAYFIELD: Went to the sixth grade. Now, do 

you thoroughly understand—I want you to be thoroughly 
mindful of this now. Do you understand what we are 
trying to ask you?

THE DEFENDANT: Some of it I don’t.
MR. MAYFIELD: Some of it you do?
THE DEFENDANT: ‘I don’t ’
MR. MAYFIELD: Some of it you don’t.
THE COURT: Do you want to tell this jury any­

thing?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You do?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.

NOTE: (The jury returned to the jury box)
MR. MAYFIELD: If Your Honor please, I would like

to have the defendant take the stand . . .  he has re­
quested—

*  *  *



54

[fol. 90] WILLIAM HENRY FURMAN, Defendant, 
took the stand and made the following statement:

MR. MAYFIELD: Now, Mr. Furman, I would like
for you to speak loud enough for the last gentleman here 
to hear you. Now, I believe you stated you wanted to 
make an unsworn statement to the jury?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: You understand what I am say­

ing by the unsworn statement, that I will have no right 
to ask you any questions and neither will the Solicitor’s 
office have any right to ask you any questions? You 
understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYFIELD: But you want to tell the jury

about this case. Is this correct?
THE DEFENDANT: That’s right,
MR. MAYFIELD: Now, if this is your choice I want

you to tell the jury in your own words—speak loud 
enough so the last gentleman here can hear you and tell 
them anything that you want them to know about this 
case. I cannot ask you any questions and neither can 
the State ask you any questions. Give your name, your 
age and everything else about you.
[fol. 91] THE DEFENDANT: William Henry Fur­
man.

MR, MAYFIELD: Speak a little louder, please.
THE DEFENDANT: William Henry Furman. I am

twenty-six. I work at Superior Upholstery.
UNIDENTIFIED: Where?
THE DEFENDANT: Superior Upholstery.
MR. MAYFIELD: Speak loud enough now for every­

one to hear you and hear you clearly.
THE DEFENDANT: They got me charged with

murder and I admit, I admit going to these folks’ home 
and they did caught me in there and I was coming back 
out, backing up and there was a wire down there on the 
floor. I was coming out backwards and fell back and I 
didn’t intend to kill nobody. I didn’t know they was be­
hind the door. The gun went off and I didn’t know noth­
ing about no murder until they arrested me, and when



55

the gun went off I was down on the floor and I got up 
and ran. That’s all to it.

MR. MAYFIELD: Now, do you have anything else
you want to tell this jury about this case?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, one other thing: they 
didn’t—questioned me down there, down there at the 
police station, they didn’t told me nothing about a law- 
[fol. 92] yer and I told them who I wanted as an attor­
ney and they still asked me questions and I wouldn’t 
answer none. That’s—that’s all I’ve got to say.

MR. MAYFIELD: Anything else you want to say
now?

THE DEFENDANT: That’s all.
MR. MAYFIELD: You may come down.

NOTE: (The defendant withdrew7 from the witness
stand.) * * * * *

SERGEANT G. W. SPIVEY, recalled, under oath, 
took the stand and testified as follows:

MR. RYAN: He is calling Mr. Spivey for the purpose
of cross examination. He’s not his witness,

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

Q Mr. Spivey, I have only one question I would like 
to ask you, sir. You examined the premises of Mr. 
Micke’s home, did you not, sir? The door that—

A Yes, I did.
Q And how many bullet holes did you find in the 

door?
A One bullet hole.
Q And did you further examine the premises for 

possible penetration of other bullets, or holes, or mark­
ings where bullets may have struck?

A No, I did not.
Q There was only one bullet hole in the door. Is that 

[fol. 93] correct?
A That’s right.
MR. MAYFIELD: That’s all. Thank you.



56

NOTE: (The witness withdrew from the witness
stand.)

MR. BARKER: You rest?
MR. MAYFIELD: Yes.

NOTE: (Both sides closed.)
END IF EVIDENCE:



57

S
t 

O
t't

 E
x

h
ib

i



59

[fol. 109] The State

versus
William Henry F urman 

* * * *
[fol. 110] CHARGE OF THE COURT:

JUDGE HARRISON: You members of the jury, the 
defendant, William Henry Furman, is on trial for the 
offense of murder.

The indictment charges the defendant with having on 
August 11, 1967, with force and arms, did unlawfully 
and with malice aforethought kill and murder William 
J. Micke by shooting the said William J. Micke with a 
pistol contrary to the laws of the State of Georgia, the 
good order, peace and dignity thereof. To this charge 
the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty and that 
forms the issue that you are to try.

I charge you that the defendant entered upon the trial 
of this case with the presumption of innocence in his 
favor, and that presumption remains with him through­
out the trial of the case until it is shown by competent 
evidence that he is guilty to a moral and reasonable cer­
tainty and beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, a reason­
able doubt is a doubt for which you can give a reason. 
It means just what it says. It is the doubt of a fair- 
minded, impartial juror honestly seeking the truth; not 
an arbitrary or a capricious doubt, but a doubt arising 
from the consideration of the evidence, or from the lack 
of evidence, or from a conflict in the evidence or from 
[fol. I l l ]  the statement of the defendant himself. Now 
if, after considering all the facts and circumstances of 
the case giving to the defendant’s statement just such 
weight and credit as you think it is entitled to receive, 
your minds are wavering, unsettled and unsatisfied, then 
that is the doubt of the law and you should acquit the 
defendant, but if that doubt does not exist in your minds 
as to the guilt of the defendant then it would be your 
duty to convict him.

Now, the defendant has made a statement in this case, 
as the law gave him the right to do. The law provides



60

that in every criminal case the defendant may make to 
the Court and jury just such statement as he sees proper 
in his own defense. It is not under oath and shall have 
such force only as the jury think right to give it. You 
may believe it, if you see proper to do so in preference 
to the sworn testimony in the case. You may believe it 
all if you see proper to do so. You may disbelieve it all. 
You may believe a part and disbelieve a part. The force, 
effect and credit to be given to the defendant’s statement 
is a matter entirely for the consideration of the jury.

I charge you further that where in any given case the 
substantial part of the case is dependent on circumstan- 
[fol. 112] tial evidence, that is, where there are no actual 
eye witnesses to the homicide and that proof of the pos­
sible guilt of the defendant is dependent on facts and 
circumstances which the State contends establishes his 
guilt, in such a case the burden is upon the State, not 
only to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but 
to prove his guilt to the exclusion of every other reason­
able hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

The object of all legal investigations is the discovery 
of the truth. Direct evidence is that which points im­
mediately to the question at issue. Indirect or circum­
stantial evidence is that which only tends to establish 
the issue by proof of various facts sustaining by their 
consistency the hypothesis claimed. To warrant a con­
viction on circumstantial evidence the proved facts shall 
not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but 
shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that 
of the guilt of the accused.

In the investigation of all matters, civil as well as 
criminal, the true function of the Court and jury is in 
the ascertainment of the truth. This defendant is pre­
sumed to be innocent and that presumption continues 
[fob 113] with him throughout the trial of the entire 
case and until his guilt has been made to appear to you 
by evidence which you can believe to a reasonable and 
moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt.

I charge you further that where there are two theories 
or conclusions, that the evidence might point to, one of 
the theories being consistent with the guilt of the de­



61

fendant and the other being consistent with his inno­
cence, and if you find this to be a fact, and that reason­
able deductions lead to his guilt on one hand and that 
reasonable deductions lead to his innocence on the other, 
the justice and humanity of the law compel you to accept 
the theory which is consistent with his innocence and 
give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and accept 
the theory that would indicate the innocence of the de­
fendant.

I charge you that an admission, as applied to a crimi­
nal case is the avowal of a fact or circumstance by the 
defendant, not amounting to a confession of guilt but, 
tending to prove the offense and from which guilt may 
be inferred. An incriminating statement is one made 
by the defendant which tends to establish the guilt of 
the accused or one from which, together with other prov­
en facts, if any, guilt may be inferred, or one which 
tends to disprove some defense set up by the accused, 
[fol. 114] Admissions and incriminating statements are 
not direct, but circumstantial, evidence and should be 
scanned with care and received with great caution. The 
jury may believe admissions or incriminatory statements 
in whole or in part, believing that which they find to be 
true and rejecting that which they find to be untrue, 
unless the State relies solely upon such admissions or 
statements. Admissions must be freely and voluntarily 
made and made without the slightest hope of benefit or 
remotest fear of injury. Unless thus made they must 
not be considered.

The charge against the defendant is that of murder. 
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the 
peace of the State, by a person of sound memory and 
discretion, with malice aforethought, either express or 
implied. Express malice is that deliberate intention un­
lawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature, which 
is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. 
Implied malice may exist and there may be no evidence 
of express malice, but it may be implied. Implied malice, 
says the law, is where no considerable provocation ap­
pears and where all of the circumstances of the killing 
show an abandoned and malignant heart. Now an aban­
doned and malignant heart, in the sense of the law, is



62

[fol. 115] commonly held to be evinced by a weapon 
likely to produce death and by a brutal and bloodthirsty 
use of the same. Whether or not a given instrument is 
a weapon likely to produce death, when used in the man­
ner in which it was used, is in every instance a question 
for the jury. In other words, murder is the intentional 
killing of a human being, or the killing of a human being 
by the intentional use of a weapon that as used is likely 
to kill and a killing without justification, mitigation or 
excuse. The punishment for persons convicted of murder 
shall be death, but may be confinement in the peniten­
tiary for life if the jury trying the case shall so recom­
mend.

I charge you that involuntary manslaughter shall con­
sist in the killing of a human being without intention 
to do so, but in the commission of an unlawful act, or 
a lawful act, which probably might produce such conse­
quence in an unlawful manner provided, that where such 
involuntary killing shall happen in the commission of an 
unlawful act which in its consequences naturally tends 
to destroy the life of a human being or is committed in 
the prosecution of a crime punishable by death or con­
finement in the penitentiary, the offense shall be deemed 
[fol. 116] and adjudged to be that of murder.

I charge you that burglary is the breaking and enter­
ing into the dwelling, mansion or storehouse or other 
place of business of another where valuable goods, wares, 
produce or any other article of value are contained or 
stored, with intent to commit a felony or a larceny. 
There are several ingredients in the offense of burglary. 
It must be a dwelling or place of business of another. 
There must be both a breaking and entering into the 
dwelling or place of business, and such breaking and 
entering must be with intent to commit a felony or a 
larceny. Any removal of those things which are usually 
found in buildings to protect them from intruders on the 
outside would be a breaking within the law. It is a 
breaking within the law of burglary to raise a window 
that is found down. It is a breaking to break a glass of 
a window and raise the latch and raise the window after­
wards. It is a breaking to turn the knob of a door and



63

enter by that means. It must be such force as used as 
would be necessary to break into a house and which de­
stroys or puts out of the way those safeguards about a 
house that are intended to protect the house from in­
truders from without and there must be an entering 
[fol. 117] after the breaking. There must be an enter­
ing into the house. This breaking and entering must 
be done with intent to commit either a felony or a lar­
ceny. Burglary is punishable by imprisonment in the 
penitentiary for not less than one nor more than twenty 
years. If you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that 
the defendant broke and entered the dwelling of the de­
ceased with intent to commit a felony or a larceny and 
that after so breaking and entering with such intent, 
the defendant killed the deceased in the manner set forth 
in the indictment, and if you find that such killing was 
the natural, reasonable and probable consequence of such 
breaking and entering then, I instruct you that under 
such circumstances, you would be authorized to convict 
the defendant of murder and this you would be author­
ized to do whether the defendant intended to kill the 
deceased or not.

Take this case, take the rules of law I have given you 
and apply them to the evidence in the case. If you find 
the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, if you 
are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty 
of murder, you should so find, and the form of your 
verdict would be, “We, the jury, find the defendant 
guilty.” Now that, without more, would mean that the 
[fol. 118] Court would, of necessity, sentence the defend­
ant to the extreme penalty of the law which would be 
death by electrocution. If you find the defendant guilty 
of murder and in the exercise of the discretion which is 
left you by the law you should recommend mercy, then 
the form of your verdict would be, “We, the jury find 
the defendant guilty and recommend mercy.” That form 
of verdict would carry as the punishment imprisonment 
in the penitentiary for life.

I charge you that the punishment for murder is death 
by electrocution, but you, the jury, have the right in 
your discretion to recommend him to the mercy of the



64

Court and fix the punishment for life, either of which 
actions by you would be binding upon the Court. The 
jury does not have to give any reason for its action in 
fixing the punishment at life or death. It does not even 
have to find that there were extenuating circumstances. 
The punishment is an alternative punishment and may 
be one or the other as the jury sees fit.

Now, if you do not believe the defendant guilty, or if 
you have a reasonable doubt in your minds as to his 
guilt, it would be the duty of the jury to give the de­
fendant the benefit of that doubt and to find him not 
guilty, in which event the form of your verdict would 
[fol. 119] be, “We, the jury, find the defendant not 
guilty.”

Now, whatever your verdict might be it must be unani­
mous, in writing, dated, signed by one of you as foreman 
and returned into Court. You will write out your ver­
dict on the back of the indictment and return it into
Court.

You may now retire and consider your verdict.
NOTE: (The jury withdrew to the jury room at 3:35

o’clock P.M.)
NOTE: (The jury returned to the jury box at 4:10

o’clock P.M.)
THE COURT: Some question you want to ask me?
JUROR: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is it a question of law or a question

of fact?
JUROR: It’s a question of law.
THE COURT: All right.
JUROR: It’s—among the jurors . . .  a difference of

opinion on the verdict that we can render. Can we ren­
der a verdict, leaving it to the discretion of the Court—

THE COURT: No, sir. I have given you the forms
of the verdicts. It’s up to the jury to determine.

JUROR: That’s all we need.
END OF CHARGE:



65

NOTE: (The jury retired to the jury room and re­
turned to the jury box at 5:10 o’clock P. M.)

*

[fol. 120] NOTE: (At the request of defense counsel
the jury was polled and all answered in the affirma­
tive as to the correctness of their verdict.)

NOTE: (The defendant sentenced by the Court.)
MR. MAYFIELD: Your Honor, note for the record

that an appeal will be filed immediately.
THE COURT: All right.
END OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:

[fol. 121] CERTIFICATE

I certify that the above and foregoing one hundred 
and twenty-one pages of typewritten material, plus pages 
of motions contained herein as part of the record, were 
taken down and then transcribed by me, and I certify 
that the same contain a true and correct transcript of 
said trial proceedings.

I further certify that I am a disinterested party to 
this action and that I am not of kin nor counsel to any 
of the parties hereto.

This 29th day of October, 1968.

,/s/ Dorothy R. Brown 
Dorothy Brown 
Court Commissioner, EJC 

of Ga.



66

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA 

Decided: Apr. 24, 1969 April Term, 1969 #105

25163

Furman

v.
The State

Duckworth, Chief Justice. This case involves the 
crime of murder by shooting, occurring during a bur­
glary after the intruder had been discovered by the de­
ceased who was then shot through a closed door. The 
accused was indicted, tried and convicted without a rec­
ommendation for mercy. A motion for new trial, as 
amended, was filed, heard and overruled, and the appeal 
is from the judgment, after conviction, and sentence 
with error enumerated on the denial of the motion for 
new trial, as amended. Held:

1. A juror having been excluded for cause because he 
stated that his opposition to the death penalty would 
affect his decision as to a defendant’s guilt, his exclusion 
did not fall within the rule as laid down in Witherspoon 
v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (88 SC 1770, 20 LE2d 776), 
and the court did not err in excluding him for cause. 
There is no merit in the amended motion complaining 
that the exclusion violated the rule in the Witherspoon 
case, supra.

2. The record showing a definitive determination from 
a consideration of the evidence by the trial judge, out of 
the jury’s presence, that upon his arrest the accused had 
his constitutional rights explained to him, including the 
right to remain silent, the right of counsel, and that 
anything he said might be used against him in court, 
and that he thereafter freely and voluntarily and know­
ingly made certain statements in regard to the crime, 
the same was admissible both legally and factually, and 
all the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S.



67

436 (86 SC i602, 16 LE2d 694, 10 ALR3d 974); Gideon 
v. Wainright, 372 U. S. 335 (83 SC 792, 9 LE2d 799, 
93 ALR2d 933); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (84 
SC 1758, 12 LE2d 977); and Jackson v. Denno, 378 
U. S. 368 (84 SC 1774, 12 LE2d 908, 1 ALR3d 1205), 
have been complied with fully and completely. We find 
no merit in the contention of counsel that his constitu­
tional rights had been violated.

3. We find no violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 
U. S. 436, supra, as contended by counsel, hence the ex­
trinsic evidence of fingerprints, admissions, and pistol 
were properly allowed in evidence against him and should 
not have been suppressed. Manor v. State, 223 Ga. 594 
(3) (157 SE2d 431); Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 
757 (86 SC 1826, 16 LE2d 908) ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 
U. S. 1 (88 SC 1868, 20 LE2d 889).

4. The statutes of this State authorizing capital pun­
ishment have repeatedly been held not to be cruel and 
unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution. See 
Sims v. Balkcom, 220 Ga. 7 (2) (136 SE2d 766) ; Manor 
v. State, 223 Ga. 594 (18), supra. Hence, there is no 
merit in this complaint.

5. The record discloses that the accused was arrested 
on August 11, 1967, and a commitment hearing held on 
August 15, 1967. While Code Ann. § 27-212 (Ga. L. 
1956, pp. 796, 797) requires a hearing within 48 hours, 
nevertheless, a detention or imprisonment beyond a rea­
sonable time does not render the verdict of a jury after 
indictment illegal or void. It has already been held above 
that the evidence of fingerprints, pistol and admissions 
which were obtained after his arrest could be used against 
him, and no secret inquisition or interrogation is claimed 
in this case. See Dukes v. State, 109 Ga. App. 825 (1) 
(137 SE2d 532); Pistor v. State, 219 Ga. 161 (132 SE2d 
183).

6. The admission in open court by the accused in his 
unsworn statement that during the period in which he 
was involved in the commission of a criminal act at the 
home of the deceased, he accidentally tripped over a wire 
in leaving the premises causing the gun to go off, to­
gether with other facts and circumstances surrounding



68

the death of the deceased by violent means, was suffi­
cient to support the verdict of guilty of murder, and the 
general grounds of the motion for new trial are not 
meritorious. See Code § 26-1004; Williams v. State, 222 
Ga. 208 (149 SE2d 449) ; Manor v. State, 223 Ga. 594, 
supra.

7. Having considered every enumeration of error ar­
gued by counsel in his brief and finding no reversible 
error, the judgment is

Affirmed. All the Justices concur.

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

Atlanta, April 24, 1969

The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to ad­
journment. The following judgment was rendered:

W illiam Henry F urman

v.

The State

This case came before this court upon an appeal from 
the Superior Court of Chatham County; and, after argu­
ment had, it is considered and adjudged that the judg­
ment of the court below be affirmed. All the Justices con­
cur.



69

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
No. 5059, October Term, 1970

J ohn Henry F urman, petitioner 

v.
Georgia

On petition for writ of Certiorari to the Supreme 
Court of the State of Georgia.

On consideration of the motion for leave to proceed 
herein in forma pauperis and of the petition for writ of 
certiorari, it is ordered by this Court that the motion 
to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same is hereby, 
granted; and that the petition for writ of certiorari be, 
and the same is hereby, granted limited to the following 
question:

“Does_ the imposition and carrying out of the death 
penalty in this case constitute cruel and unusual punish­
ment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amend­
ments?”

June 28, 1971

☆  U .  9 .  GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF IC E;  1 9 7 1 4 4 1 6 1 1 1 1 9