Correspondence - General Vol. 1 of 6 (Redacted)
Correspondence
October 28, 1978 - January 31, 1983
99 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, McCleskey Correspondence. Correspondence - General Vol. 1 of 6 (Redacted), 1978. 34d55853-fbc9-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/507546e4-51cd-41f7-9d9c-35c2b7ffe490/correspondence-general-vol-1-of-6-redacted. Accessed April 06, 2025.
Copied!
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW / Center for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies
ERNEST I. WHITE HALL 7 SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13210
(315) 423-4108
January 31, 1983
John C. Boger, Esg
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educative Fund, Inc.
10 Columbus: Circle, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10019
Dear Jack,
Enclosed are the materials for the Documents
Reguest. Note that questions 4 and 5 do not include
a reference to the revised scale. 1I'll explain why
later.
Also enclosed is a draft of our "experiment",
on death sentencing. ~I'd-like to try it outwith
faculty and students here and at Iowa, and with
friends. “What do vou think? In a-pre-test of 3
people (research assistants) one picked McClesky,
L16 for a death sentence and two did not.
I received the check and papers - thanks.
Best Regards,
Db/ckb
Enclosures
JOHN R. MYER
ROBERT H. STROUP
GARY FLACK
1515 HEALEY BUILDING
57 FORSYTH ST., N. W.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
February 25,:1983
John Charles Boger, Esq.
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Re: McCleskey v. Zant
Dear Jack:
I enclose for your review and comments a proposed. memo-
randum to Judge Forrester vis-a-vis our pending motion
to reconsider his October 8, 1982 order. That motion,
you may recall, went to granting an evidentiary hearing
for the testimony of Rev. Johnson and Gwendolyn Sharp
(McCleskey's ex-wife). In that motion, we relied upon
the panel opinion in Washington v. Strickland, and I
thought we probably should stake out our position now
based on the en banc decision.
I have not filed this; I await your comments.
Very truly yours,
Ns
Robert H. Stroup
RHS/1
Encl.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
404/522-1934
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
WARREN McCLESKEY,
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. C81-2434A
Petitioner,
WALTER D. ZANT, Warden,
Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Center,
Pk
Dk
Pk
Pe
Dk
Pk
Pe
Dk
Pe
De
Pl
,
Pe
Po
Respondent.
PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER PORTIONS OF OCTOBER 8, 1982 ORDER
INTRODUCTION.
This action is pending before the Court on Petitioner's
Motion to Reconsider Portions of the Court's Order of October
8, 1982. In light of two intervening Eleventh Circuit decisions,
Op Llsstean titioner comes and files this supplemental memorandum of law.
THE STATE COURT HEARING AND THERE IS NO
INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT NOR DELIBERATE BY-
PASS, A FEDERAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS
APPROPRIATE. = hag ny
1 WHEN MATERIAL FACTS ARE UNDEVELOPED IN
A recent Eleventh Circuit decision considers the appro-
priateness of holding an evidentiary hearing in federal court
when material facts have not been developed in the state habeas
corpus hearing. Thomas v. Zant, F. 24 + No, 81-7675 (11l+ih
Cir., February 10, 1983). In that decision, the Eleventh Circuit
recognized a two-part test as to when an evidentiary hearing
should be held in circumstances applicable to the facts of
petitioner's case herein:
"Thus a federal habeas petitioner
must make a showing of two elements in
order to obtain an evidentiary hearing
based on the fifth circumstance of Town-
send: first, that a fact pertaining to his
federal constitutional claim was not ade-
quately developed at the state court hear-
ing and that the fact was 'material' (in
the language of section (d) (3) or 'crucial
to a fair, rounded development of the
material facts' (in the language of Townsend);
second, that the failure to develop that
material fact at the state proceeding was not
attributable to petitioner's inexcusable
neglect or deliberate bypass.”
Id., Slip Opinion, at 1513, hif Fad
II. PLAINTIFF HAS SHOWN THE REQUISITES FOR A
HEARING WITH RESPECT TO TRIAL COUNSEL'S
FAILURE TO PURSUE AVAILABLE SOURCES FOR
FAVORABLE SENTENCING WITNESSES. :
Petitioner has shown the appropriateness of a hearing
with respect to the proferred testimony of Rev. Le and
wendolyn Sharp. : Proceads fliei
(eady 2) The transcript of the state inh | gp ows gi
m A counsel's failure to present the evidence at the sentencing
(¢) hearing was not a strategic choice. Trial counsel's testimony "
was that ". . .I have always made it a practice to bring some 741
relative or if I can get my hands on somebody to come in and why
say something good about the Defendant, I want to do that." bn. J
Sa 1 ‘
(iv. at 92)y Condy’ t
3 hébtio
Transcript references throughout this memorandum are to the
= transcript of the State habeas hearing.
De
The record also shows that trial counsel had pre-
141 knowledge of potential sources of character witnesses which
tfial counsel failed to investigate. Trial counsel was aware
be petitioner's family and high school background (Tr. 83).
[ The State habeas record reveals that high school sources re-
garding his character and background were not investigated by
trial counsel. (Affidavits of Thomas Adger, 45, and Mrs.
Thomas Adger, {4, submitted to the State habeas court,”
~~ The habeas court record shows further that trial
counsel was aware of Reverend Johnson (Tr. 81, 90) -- indeed,
that is how petitioner's family was referred to trial counsel
and trial counsel was in touch with Reverend gohneon during
the relevant period. Undo Wediuor - ales [indice
It is to show prejudice accruing from trial counsel's
failure to independently investigate the availability of
witnesses to appear at the sentencing phase that petitiongr seeks
ep dica
the testimony of Reverend Johnson and Gwendolyn Sharp.
material to his claim in light of the en banc court's decision
in washington v. Strickland, 693 7, 24 1243 (11th Cir. 1982).
—
at decision holds that, if, as in this case, trial counsel
fails to conduct a substantial investigation into a line of
defense, and that failure is not explained by trial strategy,
then the attorney has failed to render effective assistance of
counsel. Washington v. Strickland, at 1257-58. Trial counsel's
EN
testimony at the state habeas hearing, indicating both his |
strategy to include "character" witnesses at the sentencing phase (
—N\
-F
2
ui
2
\__Srailable leads prior to trial which were not pursued.j The
(Tr. 82), and his awareness of certain persons or institutions
which would have provided leads as to such witnesses (Rev.
Johnson, at 81, 90; Lemon School, at 83), reveals that he had
Co mee
testimony petitioner seeks to offer goes to the prejudice require-
ment imposed by Washington wv. Strickland, at 1258. Petitioner
seeks to offer the testimony of Rev. Johnson and Ms. Gwendolyn
Sharp to show that trial counsel's failure to pursue these lines
of investigation did work to his actual and substantial disadvan-
2/
tage . — Ea
Wi vs
“Petitioner submits that this evidence is appropriately heard by
this Court because "it is not so clearly distinct from the claims
presented to the state courts that it may fairly be said that the
state courts have had no opportunity to pass on the claim."
Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504, 516, n. 18, 31 L. Ed. 2d 394
(1972). This analysis was applied most recently by the Eleventh
Circuit in Cosby v. Jones, 6382 F. 24 1373 {11th Cir, 1982), at
1379, n. 11. That Eleventh Circuit note indicates that Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U. 8. 71-1. Ed. 24 379 (1982) does not affect a line
of cases based upon Humphrey v. Cady, supra, and Picard v. Connor,
404 -U. 8S. 270, 30 L. Bd, 24 438 (1971) holding that new facts may
be considered by the federal habeas court, so long as they are
not clearly distinct from the claims presented to the state courts.
Miller v, Estelle, 677 ®. 28 1081 (5th Cir. 1982); Anderson v,.
Casscles, 531 FP, 24 682 (2nd Cir. 1976); Butler v. Rose, 686 F,
26 1163 (6th. Cir. 1982),
The evidence which peticidfiyr seeks to have the Court grant an
evidentiary hearing on is evidence properly considered not so
clearly distinct from the claims presented to the state courts
such that it may fairly be said that the state courts have had no
opportunity to pass on the claim. The state courts have heard
evidence regarding trial counsel's failure to investigate; his
failure to independently pursue available leads; and his testimony
that this was not a result of trial strategy. It is to bolster
the evidence of "prejudice" required under Washington v. Strick-
land, supra, that petitioner believes this proffered evidence
should be heard. The evidence is essentially supplementary to the
bulk of the evidence already submitted to the state court -- but
yet significant in meeting present-day evidentiary burdens now
imposed by the federal courts.
On the basis of this recent Eleventh Circuit autho-
rity, the Court should grant the evidentiary hearing sought
"ay
by petitioner.
IIT. UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THOMAS V. ZANT,
THE INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED
TO THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO OFFIE
GENE EVANS SHOULD BE MADE A PART OF
THE RECORD.
In its order of October 8, 1982, the Court also
granted petitioner's motion to have certain documents related
to Offie Gene Evans made a part of the record, conditioned upon
counsel showing why that evidence
Cat
could not have been available
& =
for the state habeas judge's review.
Under the standards of Thomas Vv. Zant, supra, that
evidence should be considered by the Court. The evidence is
material to the Court's review of petitioner's habeas corpus
claims. The evidence is material to the ineffective assistance
of counsel claim based upon trial counsel's failure to investi-
gate the State's witnesses whose names appeared on the September
20 witness list.
There can be no claim that the failure to investigate
was a result of counsel's trial strategy. Trial counsel acknow-
ledged at jthe state habeas hearing that, prior to trial, he
Zspedd that there might be testimony from a Fulton County
prisoner along the lines that eventually developed (Tr. 75). He
testified further that he was especially interested in reasons
S/
~ In the alternative, their affidavits should be made a part of
the record, pursuant to Rule 7(bL}.
why persons in Offie Evans' category (persons with substan-
tial records) appeared on the witness list (Tr. 86). Finally,
his failure to pursue an investigation was expressly explain-
ed by trial counsel - he did not do so because he did not
anticipate the deputy sheriff would offer to him "exculpatory
information” (Tr. 79). 0 Fitee, as a matter of law, such is
not an adequate basis to fail to pursue an investigation.
“Davis v. State of Alabama, 596 FP. 24 1214 at 1217 (5th Cir.
1979) vacated as moot 446 U. S.:903,. 64. L. BA 28 256 (1980);
("An attorney does not provide effective assistance if he fails
to investigate sources of evidence which may be helpful to the
defense.") (Emphasis added.) Gaines v. Hopper, 575 PF. 24 1147
{5th Cir. 1978}.
The evidence before the Court is material to show
the prejudice accruing to petitioner from trial counsel's failure
to investigate. It shows s bstantial evidence casting Evans’
credibility into doubt oriduds different from that actual-
ly presented at trial. It is therefore, interial
The affidavit evidence from petitioner's present \
counsel shows that there was no inexcusable neglect nor deliberate
g/ nnn
As cited above in footnote 2, it cannot be said that the evi-
dence 1s so distinct from the claim presented to the state court
that it may fairly be said the state courts have had no opportu-
nity to pass on the claim. Evans himself testified at the State
habeas hearing to the understanding he had with the Atlanta
Police Detective handling the McCleskey case (Tr. 122).
bypass. Evans' whereabouts was unknown to trial counsel for
a number of critical weeks prior to the January, 1981 State
habeas hearing, directly as a result of misinformation given
by State authorities. When his whereabouts became known it
was too near the trial date, then to expect to develop:
further evidence regarding his understandings and deals with
State officials.
CONCLUSION.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court should
reconsider its order of October 8, .1982, and grant the relief
sought by petitioner herein.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT H. STROUP
1515 Healey Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
JACK GREENBERG
JOHN CHARLES BOGER
10 Columbus Circle
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019
ANTHONY G. AMSTERDAM
New York University Law School
40 Washington Square South
New York, New York 10012
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
EXHIBIT B
PBOQPFIIE )
KEY
= Life Sentence
= Death Sentence
Case # Sentence Case #% Sentence
C18 0 2 D258 0 2
C54 0 3 D27 1 3
C55 go 2 D36 1 04
CEE 1 4 D38 2 A
CE? 1 4 Dat 0
£73 0 D50 0 rR
C74 0 2 D51 1
CTE 0 z. Lig 1
C77 1 4 MOS 1
C78 1 4 Z1s H]
C70 0 2 z18 th | 4
c890 0 [ Z20 1
cs2 0 z 008 1 KC
ca 1 iy 016 0 $
C8a 0 % 032 0 4
c8s 0 P 033 0 %
cag 0 1 034 0 >A
C87? 0 2 013s 0 i
c88 0 1 037 0
cas Oo 3 038 0 3
C91 re 040 i
Cco3 0 a 042 0 2
C94 0 3 043 ‘0 ;
Css 0.2 044 0 3
C96 0 2 045 0 2
C97 QO 2 046 0 \
co8 8.2 047 0 :
C99 1 4 048 0 3
DOL 0 2 049 0 i
DO2 Oo a 00 0 z
DO3 1 3 051 0 [
004 8.3 052 "3
DOE + FE 053 0 2
cO07 8 DE4 0 |
DoS 0. 3} 055 0 3
DOS 0 3 0&€ 0 f
D10 0. 3 057 0 )
C11 8% 058 0 2
D12 3 060 0 |
D132 Y . % 0€1 0 |
D14 1 4 062 0 z
D15 8. 063 EEG
D1E€ 0 4 0€4 1 Y
D17 y 3 06S 0 2
018 1 066 0 po)
D19 0 1 074 1 3
D20 1 y 201 0 o
ca21 202 1
p22 oO 211 0 3
D232 0 rs 2213 0 i
024 1 225 0
t 226 0 3
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
227 0 z 324 0 |
228 0 2 32s 0 rR
231 0 2 327 0 |
237 0 . 328 0 2
239 0 2 329 0 |
245 8 330 0 Zz
247 Ee BEF 331 0 3
249 | 0 1% 232 0. $
250 | 0 | 4 322 3 | ;
251 0 ! :
£54. 0 2 335 0 1
256 | 0 z Ris 0
258 | 0 I 5% ‘i :
26) 0 u 233 2 2
262...) 0 3 33s e 2
265 1 4 342 9 a
2656 1 q 34s 8 4
267 1 ¢ 345 2 %
268 0.09 247 0 i
270 0.1 2 348 0 2:
272 0 3 349 0 z
218 | 0 2 350 0 7
275 | 0 ; 352 0 4
277 | od] 2 354 ot 2
275 1 2 33 0 3
2e1 | 0 2 =S€ 0 2
23. | 0 11 387 0 3
| 35€ 0 3 2€4 0 | | 585 1 i 359 0 3
286 | 0 2 351 0 y
290 0 2 36 0
293 0 2 364 0 )
294 0 | 365 0 h
2G€& 0 3 366 0 |
367 0 3 299 0 FY 2
203 | 0 : 14) o g 204 0 2 371 0 ]
5 2 373 0 306 0 2
307 1 4 374 0 2
313 0 2 377 0 3
314 0 ! S13 0 2
317 0 L 380 0 4
31s 2. 1a3 383 0 320 0
321 0 2 384 0 2
322 0 3 38% 0 3
323 0 2 38s 3 3
387 0 2
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
age LURE | 466 0 }
389 9:2 467 0 :
230 9. 19 468 0 !
3g1 0 3 469 0 rR
392 0 1 472 0 (2
394 0 iL 473 0 2
355 0 3 &£74 0 2
396 0 2 47€ 0 3
397 0 2. 477 0 2
356 0 o 480 0
400C 0 2 481 | 0 2
401 gi oY 482 | 0 2
402 8. 487 | 0 3
4073 0 H 488 1 Y
404 0 f 431 1 uy
40E 9: 1 a 493 0 i
407 1 ¥ 434 1 2
408 0 45¢ 1 UY
410 0 y 496 0 2
411 0 | 497 2
412 0 i 4S 8 0
413 0-13 As 0 2
414 0 S00 0 2
415 0 Z S01 0 2
416 0 TY 502 0 |
418 0 503 0 2
423 0 4 E0€E 0 3
42% 0 3 S09 0 “
426 1 3 510 1 4
427 0 S11 0 x
429 0 3 £14 0
433 0 S1€ ; 3
43a 0." 3 5156 1 y
437 0 7 £17 0 ?
440 0 2 516 0 2
441 0 | S20 0 y
444 0 | 523 0
446 0 t 24 0 3
447 0 i'd 325 0
448 0 \ 526 0 |
450 1 & 227 0 4
451 0. B32 8 2
452 0 pA 535 0 — 3
455 0.1 3 asa °
458 0 ' 539 0 $
459 1 540 0 3
460 0 Ly £41 2 2
461 0 3 a ° 3
462 0 p44 0 2
468 0 S46 0
|
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
547 diy 2 s08 | ie i
548 0 2 £05 0 {
549 | 1 4 610 1 y
550 0 3 611 0 -
551 1 \y 612 0 -
552 0 Y 614 0 bog
ge: ba ois Sou
555 0 / 619 | eo HZ
3% o Jog 5 13
558 IRE €23 0 | 4
589 1 3 625 0 y
SE 1 0 626 0
562 0 4 627 1 b
Bes 0 1 630 >
565 0 ? 632 0
5656 0 2 633 | Bie.
S&7 0 634 | 0 1
4: 3% tH HE 569
=70 0 ¥ 637 0 :
1. €38 0
SEA 0. Y 639 0 2
573 Eh Se | 640 1 y
574 | 1 4 641 1 4
576 1 p 642 0
577 | 1 4 643 0 !
578:.1 i 644 0 3
573 1 4 645 0 Zz
580 0 E4E 0
581 1 647 1 3
582 | 648 0
583 9. 4 645 0
584 8: 2 £50 0
585 9 wa.3 652 0
S86 3 py 653 0
Ly Re a $4 : 5
590 0 { 657 0
591 0 / €58 0. 9
592 0 Z 659 0
5932 1 Y 661 0 2
59 € 0 ¥ €E 2 0
4 31% gy 3 }
601 0 3 665 0 [A
602 0 7 €70 0
603 0 3 672 1 $
608 0 4 €73 0
can
C
T
3
o
e
(VN
~
3
H
N
M
I
N
I
S
(verm
(
A
A
—
—
V
O
Y
HE
S
T
=
J
T
r
d
p
I
-
0} 3
r
o
0
v
i
s
i
t
E
R
C
R
P
I
-
Q 2
Om
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
u
m
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
O
~
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
C
O
0
0
0
0
0
Q 0 .
C
e
Sain
w
l
:
0)
Om
I
N
E
F
O
I
U
N
D
P
O
M
I
O
M
O
N
I
N
O
H
M
N
U
A
L
V
O
O
m
N
I
N
W
A
R
C
O
M
A
M
I
N
C
T
I
N
N
D
O
O
~
0
W
O
O
P
N
D
O
E
V
O
O
O
N
A
M
N
A
N
N
O
D
O
C
N
Q
O
OTC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O0
rimmed
=m
(UA
NN
A
I
M
8
a
N
N
N
S
N
N
NN
TS
SO
NSE
L
E
ER
EP
E
T
Ln
0)
oh
p
r
e
y
gi
9
/
0
a
a
n
m
—
—
.
y
Q
C
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
M
O
~
O
O
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
m
M
O
0
0
0
0
+H = Q &) $=
S
T
O
O
D
N
N
W
U
M
N
O
O
H
A
M
U
O
R
N
D
Q
P
O
A
M
I
U
L
O
~
A
U
N
I
V
A
T
L
C
O
M
I
N
C
U
R
9
F
O
R
D
P
O
O
O
N
O
R
N
O
S
O
O
O
O
m
m
m
A
r
A
A
N
A
N
U
N
N
N
A
M
M
A
P
I
I
M
D
S
S
S
T
©
C
O
W
C
O
W
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
K
E
N
A
N
K
N
N
M
A
N
N
N
A
E
N
N
A
S
N
N
S
E
N
A
R
A
S
S
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
N
E
S
S
E
A
QO
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
834 (1 hy $51 | tL "8
83€ Br 9532 1 3
839 0 [ 954 0 “+
840 8 $55 1 M
841 Pa 956 0 hd
B44 0 3 957 0 3
Bac 0 2 GSE 1 2
848 0 BY { 959 | 0
Hig 0 4 3632 | 1 2
85 0 964 | 1 ht
855 0 4 966 | 0
860 a 3&5 | 0 |
BE1 1 | 974 | Ou.
862 0 | 3 975 | 0 2g 1
Ci 0 | 2 977 | 0 3
£71 0 378 | 0
4g g 2 980 | 1 2
280 o |} 2 3-4 d
gel v | 4 986 0
893 1 § 991 1 1
ggs 0 x 992 1
RSE 0 rs [V1
898 1 hr)
899 1 0
504 0 3
905 0 3
914 0 !
S15 0 3
919 0
920 0 4
g21 0 2
922 g. 3
923 0
524 0. 2
926 ; CA
927 051 2
929 0 | 2
S30
931 0 A
933 yl
335 3%
936 1 3
937 0
341 1 ¥
942 0 Fo
943 0
544 1 i
945 0
947 0
348 0 hr
94% 9 =.
EXHIBIT .C
A)
LL D FPF SAMPLE
DEATH SENTENCE CASES
NAME
ALDERMAN o JACK pa
TONY B
BAKER, "DANTEL J
“BANKS, JERRY
BARFOWs KEITHEN
BERRYHILL , MICH
BIRT, BILLY SUN
~~ BLAKE, JOSEPH J
~~ BLANKENSHIP, RO
BOWDEN s JEROME
BOWEN, CHARLES
BROOKS, WILLIAM
BROWN JOHN A
BROWN, NATHAN
BROWN, PAUL JR
BURGER, CHRISTO
CAMPBELL, WILLIE
CAPE, GARNETT
CERVI, MICHAEL
CHENAULT, MARCU
COBB, ANTHONY J
COFIELDs FABIAN
COLEMAN, WAYNE
COLLIER, ROBERT
COLL INS. ROGER
“CDRNs CHARLES T
CUNNINGHAM, EMM
CUNN INGHAM, JAM
DAMPIER, KENNY
DANIELS, JAMES
DAVIS, CURFEW
DAVIS, FREDDIE I
"DICKs DENNIS
DIX» HORACE WIL
DOBBS, WILBUR Ww
~ DORSEYs LARRY C
DOUTHIT, RONALD
DRAKE» HENRY AR
DUNGEEs GEORGE
~ FAIR, KEITH
FINNEY, EDDIE Ww
FLEMING SCN
FLOYD, GARY MIC
“HIGH JOSE M =F
NAME
GREEN, ROOSEVE
GREGG». TROY
GRIGGS TOMMY wll
“HALL, JIMMY DON
HAMILTON, PAUL
HANCE » WILLIAM
HARDY, BILLY
"HARDY, KENNETH
HARRI Ss KENNETH
HAWES, GARY LEE
HENDERSON, BENJ
HILL, CHARLES
HILLs TONY C1
HOCLTCNy, KERMI
© HOUSE» WACK CAR-T
ISAACS, CARL JU
JARRELLs DAVID
JOHNSON JOHNNY
JORDANS WILLIAM
JUSTUSs BUDDY By
KR IER, WAYNE LA
LAME, RANDALL R
LEGARE, ANDREW
LEWIS, WILL TAM
_MASONs GUY
'MCCLESKY, WARRE
MCCORQUODALE, T
MESSER, JAMES J
MITCHELLS WILLT
"MOORE, CARZELL
MOORE, WILL IAM
MORGAN, ALPHONS
MULLIGANs JOSEP
NELSONs GARY
OWENS» SAMMY oll
PATRICK, JAMES
PEEK, DAVID
POTTS, JACK HOW
PRE SNELL» VIRGI
PREVATTE, TED A
PRYORy LEONARD
FRANKL IN, RAYMO ~~ PULLTAM, JESSIE Note. Iobiy 2 NY L
GIBSON, TTI SAM
GILREATH, FRED
GODFREY, ROBERT
GODDW IN, TERRY
GRADY s ARNOLD J
REDCs BOB EC
ROSS a WILLIE To
RUFF JUDSON
A)
B)
DEATH SENTENCE CASES CONT.
NAME
SHAW JILL CLAUD
SMITH, JOHN ELD
SMITH», REBECCA
SMITH, TONY MIC
SOLOMON VAN R
SPENCER. JAMES
SP IVEYs RONALD
SPRAGGINS, EDDI
SPROUSE, JERRY
STACK, HOWARD J
STANLEY, IVON R
STEVENS s THOMAS
STEVENS, WILLIA
STREET, GEORGE
STRICKLAND, ROB
TAMPL INs ROLAND
THOMAS, DONALD
THOMAS, EUGENE
THOMAS, JOSEPH
TUCKER, RICHARD
TUCKER, WILLIAM
TYLER. SHIRLEY
WALLACE, ROBERT
WARDy EOWARD JR
WESTBROOK, JOHN
WILLIS, HENRY
WILSONs DAVID E
WILSON, JOSEPH
YOUNG» CHARLIE
YOUNG, JOHN
OTHER CASES
NAME
ADAMS, DAVID JO
ADAMS, JAMES DE
ADAMS, LUCIOUS
ADAMS, RONALD E
ADAMS, RONALD E
ADAMS, RUFUS LE
ADAMS, WILLIE S
ADDI SON MEL VIN
AGUILAR, GERARD
ALBERT, EDDIE L
ALDRIDGE GLENN
ALEXANDER ANDY
ALEXANDER JOHN
ALLEN FREEMAN
ALLEN SYLVESTER
ALLEN, MILTCN
ALLENs MILTON
ANDERSON ALFDRD
ANDERSON. LEMUE
ANDERSON» THOMA
ANGL IN, JOHN TH
ANGLIN, JOHN TH
ARMETRONG, JESS
- ARNOLD HENRY JR
ARNCLD»s JERRY J
Ry A
NAME
ARRINGTON, JOSE
ASHFORD SYLVIA
ASKEW DAVID LEE
AYERS, RENE PEA
BAILEY EDDIE LE
BAILEY NATHANIE
BAILEY, GREEN S
BAKER CLARENCE
BAKER LILTON
BAKER WILLIAM
BAKER, BORBY
BAKER, STEVE WA
BALDWINs MARY R
BALLARD BUSTER
BALLARD GLADYS
BANKS MATTIE
BANKS, JOHN M
BARBER MAPLE
BARBER» SEURSE
BARNES, BILLY
BARNES, BONNIE
_ BARNETT WALTER
"BARRETT. MARCUS
B) OTHER CASES CONT.
NAME
BATTERSWORTH T
BATTLE ROBERT
BEAMONs GREGORY
BEASLEY ELVIN
BEASLEY, PAUL
"BEASLEY, THOMAS
BEECHER» JOE
BEL IEFF, FRANK
BELL, BENNY ROB
“BELL, DORIS MAY
BELL. GARY JERD
BENNETT THOMAS
BENTLEY, JAMES
~ BENTON CLINTON
BERGANY ys ROBERT
BERRY OTIS
BERRY, WILLIE L
BERRYMAN DAVID
BIRTs ROBERT WI
B ISEDOP, ELBERT
BIVENSs SANDY
BLACKWELL, CORR
BLAIR, EDDIE JR
BL ALOCK, WILBUR
BLAYLOCK, CTHARL
BOHANNDON, OSCAR
BOLING, RANDALL
BOLTONs HERSHEL
BONDS CURTIS
"BONEYy ELMER
BOOKER, CATHERI
BOOKER, MICHAEL
BOSTWICK, JAMES
"BCUTTRY., LEONAR
BOWEN, HENRY
BOYD KENNETH
BOYD TERRY __
BOYD, SHIRLEY
BOZEMAN, IDA PE
BRACKETT, WALTE
BRADBERRY LEC
“BRADFORD, ANDRE
BRADSHAW, CLARE
BRADSHAW, FELTO
BRANNEN, MICHAE
"BRIDGES s JOSEPH
BRITTIAN GENE
BROOKS, BOBBY
BROWN CLINTON
"BROWN JOHNNIE L
BROWN LEROY JR
BROWN ROXANNE
BROWN THECDORE
"BROWN, ALBERT J
BROWN, ANDERSON
“BROWN, BCBBY LE
BROWNs BOBBY LE
BROWN, CECIL
BROWN, EARL L
BROWN, GECRGE M
BROWN, HARVEY A
BROWN». JAMES JR
BROWNs JOHNNYE
BROWN, PAUL EUG
BRO¥N, SARA JO
CARLISLE, FRED
AVE
BROWN, TINA
BROWN, WAYNE
BRYANT LONNIE T
BRYANT MEMDRY
BRYANT, ANNA L
BRYANT, JAM
BRYANT, JOHNNY
BURCHFIELDs, BIL
BURDETTE, RICKY
"BURGER, BOBBY &
BURKEs CHARLES
BURNETT RCUCBERT
BURNETT» BILLY
BURNETTE HENRY
BURTCN WEEB
BURTON. WILLIE
BUSSEYs BESSIE
BUSSEY, ROBERT
BUTLER, THOMAS
BUTLER, VIRGINI
BUTLER, WILLIE
CALLOWAY, KING
CAMERON DOUGLAS
CAMERON. CHARLI
CAMPBELL LILLI
CAMPDELLs, WILLI
CANDIDATE, THED
CANNINGTON, ELZ
CARPENTER HOMER
CARTER EDDIE
CARTER JOE
CARTER JULIAN
CARTER RICKEY
CARTER, RANDALL
CARTEY JOHN CATES TERRY
CATO, JOHNNY
CHAFFINs PAUL E
CHAFINs JOSEPH
CHAMP ION SHIRLY
CHANEY, ROGER W
CHATMAN PHIL
CHATMAN, GABRIE
CHERRY, HOMER
BROWNING, RODNE
CAFFOs MICHAEL
CLACKUM RANDALL
CLEMENTS, ANDY
CLYDE, WILLIAM
COACHMAN CHARLE
CORB ANTHNY 20
CODY ARTHUR
COLEMAN, ALBERT
COLEMANSs RAYMON
COLEYs ROCKY AK
COLLIER WILLIE
COLLINS JIM JR
COLL INS PETE
COLLINS, LILLA
COLLINS, SPENCE
COLVIN JAMES
COLVIN LEE
COLNINs, HOWARD
“TOM EY PAUL E
CONTRERAS, JR J
B) OTHER CASES CONT.
NAME NAME
CONTRERAS, VICK DUMAS, JIMMIE T
COOK HENRY DURHAM WILLIAM
— YONY DURHAM, ROBERT
CDOK, JOE B DYEs WILLIE ED
COOMBS, HAROLD EBERHART HARVEY
CODPERs EDDIE J ECHOLS, JIMMY L
“COOPER, HENRY L EDWARDS PAUL DU
COPEL AND CARLDS EDWARDSs GEORGE
CORBIN, RONNIE EDWARDS s IDUS ~
CORN PATRICIA EDWARDS, OVELL
“COUCH, ANTHONY "EILANDs, TERRY
COULTER, DAVID ELAN EUGENE
COUNCE, THOMAS - ELDERs LADDIE J
COURSON LESTER FLL ENBURG, GEDR
"CRAVER, WILLIE ELLIOTT LARRY
~ CRAWFORD» JIMMY ELLIS JUANITA :
AI Rg ELLIS, DANNY WA
CROSBY RICHARD ELL ISON DAVID
CROWDER CLAUDE ELYs KEVIN LYLE
CROWE, FRED JRe EMMETT, HOMER L
CULBERTSON, JOH "EMORY, ALTON H
_ CULBREATH JIMMY ETHRIDGE s JAMES
CUMMINGS GEORGE EUBANKS, JACK S
CURRY ALBERT EVANS LARRY
CURTIS, DIANE “EVANS, FRED Mm
CURTIS, JOHNNY EVANS, RONNIE
CURTIS, MARION FAC ISON TOMMY
D* ANTIGN AC, DON FAMBRO DAVID
"DABLINs GRADY "FARLEY SIDNEY
DANIEL Ss JAMES “FATE, JAY MCCLU
DASHER MARCUS FAVORS HULEN
DAVID GUNN FELTSs JAMES MI
“DAVIDSONs ALTON FERGUSON, HOWAR
DAV IS CHARLIE + FIELDSy RICHMON
DAVIS GRADY JR FINCH TOMMY
DAVIS JEFF FINNEY, JAY OD
—AVIS LEROY FITZROY JOSEPH
DAVIS» ALLEN FLEMING, BRUCE
DAVISs JOANN | FLEMING, HARVEY
DAVIS, MICHAEL FLETCHER EDDIE
"DAWSON, EDDIE C FLINTROYAL ,WILL
DEBERRYs RAYMON FLORENCE» ELMD
DECKER, JDANN FLOWERS MICHAEL
DEES, JIMMY DAN FLOYD» IKE IIT
“DEMPS, CHARLES FLOYD, WILLIE L
DENNIS ALEX SR FLURY, THOMAS J
DENT ROSA BELL FOLEY PETER
DEREK JAMES FORD JOSEPH =
DICKEY, ALBERT : FORD, JAMES D
DICKEYs, JAMES E FORTSONs CAREY
DILLARD JEFF JR FOSTERs MARCUS
DIXONs ALBERT FOX JAMES
DIXON, BOEBY FCXe, RALPH HOWA
DIXONs ELAINE W FRANKLIN, RALPH
DI XONs HARRY SA FRASIER, JOHN R
DIXON, JIMMY LE FRAZIER THOMAS
“DCDSON, JESS "FULLER FRED
DOSSs ANNA J FUTCH HARRIS
DOTHARD, DORDTH GADDY HENRY JR
DOTY FLOYD GAINERs MILTON
“DOUGLAS BERNARD "GANDY, JESSE JA
DOUGLAS, FRED A GANTER TOMMY
DOWNERs EDDIE GANTT MICHAEL
DCWNSs JOHN HEN GARCIA, PETE
“DOYLE, WILLIE GARLAND, CLAUDE
DRIGGERSs EARL GARNTO CALVIN
DRIVER, LARRY GARNT 10s ER EST
DRYERs EVELYN S GARTMAN PATRICK
DUHART LEON GARTRELL ROSVLT
DULANEYs RODNEY
B) OTHER CASES CONT.
NAME
__GAYNORy JAMES 1.
GEORGE»
GIBBONS, “WILLIE
GILL RICKY
GILLESPIE, DAVIE
TGILLTIAM CLEVELD
GILMORE, FELTON
GOINS DALE DEAN
GOLOMAN GARY
GODDSON, LULA M
GORDON» LINDA
GORDY, WILL IAM
GRAHAM, ELVESTE
~ GRANT SRes MILA
GRANT, LEWIS A
GRAVES, JAMES L
GRAVLEY RALPH
GRAY, BRENDA L
GREEN JARRELL
GREEN, CTIS CLI
GREEN, VERDIE L
~ GREEN, WINSTON
GREENE, MARTHA
GREGGs CHARLES
GRIFFIN SHELLY
GRIFFIS. STANLE
GRINERs ETHEL
GRIZZARD, HUBER
~ GUEST, RANDALL
“GUNN, CALVIN
GUNTER, JERRY
GUYTONs R A
HAI SMAN, JANICE
HALL JIMMY JR
HALLs LINDA FAY
HALL» RONNIE
HALL s STEVEN JA
"HAMBY, BIGE EDW
HAMILTON RONNIE
HAMLIN, CECIL WwW
HAMMETT, CARL E
HAMPTON, LAWTON
HAND, TRAVIS
HARGRAVE WILL IE
HARKINS GECRGE
~ HARPERs JOHNNY
HARPER, MICHAEL
HARRELL » LAMAR
_HARRIGNTON AL
‘HARRIS EDDIE
HARRIS NATHAN
HARRI Ss BARBARA
HARRIS, CHARLIE
HARRIS, DORIS J
HARRIS, EARL
HARRIS, H G AKA
HARRIS. JAMES F.
HARRIS, WALTER
HARRISON, J C
"HARRISONs MARY
HAWES EDDIE MA
HAWKINS, JR DoW
HAYES PEARL IE
HAYES WILLIE =
HAYES, ROBERT Ww
HAYESs ROGER JD
HAYNES, HORACE
HAYNES, JIMMY L
NAME
HAYS IKE JR
HEAD » CHRISTINE
HEARD JOHN A
HEDGECOCK » MICH
HENDERSON JRe F
HENDERSON ROY C =
HENDERSTN, LERO
HENDRICKSON», JO
HENRY» EUGENE W
- HENRY, JDSEPH L
“HENRY, MILTCN L
HERLONG JAMES
HESSEs RICHARD
HESTERs GLCRIA
HICKMAN, EDDIE
HICKSs JAMES TE
HICKS, JESSIE L
HIGHTOWER ULYSS
CHILL ANNIE JEAN
HILL JOHN
HILL, JAMES THO
HILL, TIMOTHY W
HOBGCCD NELLIE
“HEWITT ROCKY
HIGHFIELD, BRAD
““HILLs ALICE ASK
"HODGE » ANDERSON
"HOWELL, JEROME
HODGEs JAMES EA
HOERNERs CHRIST
HOLLIS. DANIEL
THOLLOWAY MM wW
HOLLOWAY, WILSD
HOOTENs BETTY J
HOPK INS SAMMIE
HORN NATHANTEL
HORNE » DOROTHY
HORTON, CLAY CA
HOWARD JOHNNY
HOWINGTONs ERNE
reer
HUBBARDs ANTAS
INGRAM LUCIOQUS
“JACOBS EUGENE
HUDSON BILL
HUDSON WILLIE
HUDSON, ROBERT
HULGAN GORDON
HUMPHRIES, CLEV
HUERTA. RITG DO
HUNTERs CHARLIE
HUNTER, JOSEPH
HUTCHERSON ED
HYZENE WILL IE
IRWIN, CHARLES
IVEY, SAMUEL D
JACKSON ANNETTE
JACK SCN CLARENC
JACKSON GLORIA
JACKSCN L € JR
JACKSON ROBERT
JACKSONs JAMES
JACKSON» JERRY
JACKSON, LEE EA
JACKSONs MYRT IC
JACKSCNy WASH
JACOBS, CHRISTD
JAI RRELS MARION
B)
JEFFRIES. RAY
OTHER CASES CONT.
NAME
Rl
JENKINS, BEN
JENKINS, EARL
JENKINS, IRWIN
JOHNSON CHARLES
JOHNSON, EDWARD
JOHNSON HUGH
JOHNSCN JCYCE
JOHNSON, BOBBY
JOHNSON, EMMETT
JOHNSON, FLOYD
JOHNSONs J WAYN
JOHNSON, JAMES
JOHNSON, PLEDGE
JOHNSONs JERRY
JOHNSON, JUL TUS
JOCHNSCNs MARK J
JOHNSCNs RAY
JOHNSON, ROSEMA
JOHNSON» WALTER
JOHNSON, WILLIE
JONES ANCERSON
JONES EDWARD
JONES WALLACE
JONES WILLARD
JONES»
JONES,
"JONES,
KELLEY,
JONES»
JONES»
JONES,
JONES »
JONES,
JORDAN,
CASTERDA
GEORGE E
HULETTY
JCEY LAV
LAVERNE
WILL TAM
WILLIE UL
ZEBERETE
FORREST
JUDYs MILDRED B
JIMMY D
KELLOGG WILL IS
KENDRICK, CHARL
KENNEDY» DIANA
KESLER,
KIMERELL HAROLD
KESSEL
ANT HONY
EMCRY
KIDD LONNIE
KILPATRICK, EAR
KING ALE XANDER
KING,
“KING, 1
KINGs JAMES WAL
KINGs MARVIN EL
KINGs RANDOLPH
KNOWLES EULA
LAWRENCE MARTHA
LAWRENCE, TILLM
LAY FRANCES
KNOWLES, WILLIA
BERN ICE
KINGs FREDDIE L
RA
KNOX CEPHAS
KURDWSKI » EDWAR
KYLER,
LABON
LACHEY
HERBERT
WILLIE H
JAMES
LAMAR LEON
LAMAR,
LAMB, ROBERT GE
LANE, JERRY R
LANHAM
LANIER,
LANIER,
LANIER,
ELLIS JR
DARRELL
ALBERT
HILDREY
TERRY 8
LAW, MICHAEL K
NAME
LEACH, FRANKL IN
LEACH, THOMAS G
LEMLEY, MELVIN
LENDIR, FOYE E
LESLIE SARAH SU
LEWIS. STEVE TH
LITTLE LEWIS
LITTLE RUDOLPH
LITTLE, WILLIE
LIVAS JEROME
LIVELY, DAVID W vy AVI
LOBOSCOs, CHARLE
LOCKETT, WALTER
LOGGINS CALVIN
LONG JOE FRANK
LOONEYs LARRY
LOURY, RDY R
LOWE MICHAEL
LOWERY, EUGENE
LUMPK INs MICHAE
LUTTRELLs JOHNN
MADDOX WILLIAM
MANTOOTH, PASKE
MARABLEs LUTHER
MARSHALL» JOHNN
MART IN,
MARTIN,
MARTIN,
MART IN,
MARTIN,
MARTINS
MASSEY»
MATHIS,
DANNY D
EIKANAH
GEORGE
MYRTICE
RONNIE
ANDREW
TONY
MATTHEWS» JAMES
MCALLISTER, JAM
MCBRIDE HOWARD
MCCALLA» JOHN T
MCCANTS EARL
MCCLENDON OTIS
MCCLURE LOUIS
MCCORMICK JAMES
MCCOY» TOMMY
¥ILLIE
MCCRARYs WILLIE
MCCULLOUGH SAM
MCDONALD RAY
MCDCWELL » Je Bs
MCDUFFIE, JOHN
MCEACHINs CAREY
MCNEIL»
MEL TON,
KENNE TH
JOE
MERCER WAYNE
MERRIWEATHER R
MIKLE »
MILLER,
MILLERS
MILLERS
JERRY J
EVERETT
WILLIE
MILLS MARTHA
MINCEY, JAMES E
“JOHNNY
MITCHELL» FREDD
MITCHELL, MATTI
MOBLEY» STEVE
MOBLEY» WILBERT
MONTGOMERY CAL
B) OTHER CASES CONT.
NAME
BE
MOODY SAMMIE
MOODY. BARBARA
MOON, JOSIE M
MOONEY MICHAEL
~ MOONEYs JOHN HE
MDDRE, RDBERT LU
MDORE, WILL IAM
MORALEZ., HUMBER
MORET» ANTHONY
MORGANs DENNIS
MORGANs JON TER
MORGAN, LARRY
"MORR ISe BENNY
MORRISON MAJOR
MORROW MARBELL
MNSESs GEDRGE R
MDSS GRADY
MOTONSs CHARLIE =
MOYE L C
MOYE LEWIS
MUHAMMAD MUJAHI
MURPHYs CLAYTON
MURRAY RICKY
MYRONs JANES MI
NAIR, FLEMING J
NEWSOME, ROY GE
NISSEN SCREN
NIX BOBBY LEE
NUNNERY JOHNNY
NUTT JAMES
D*KELLEYs GOLDD
D*NEALs GEDRGE
ODILLCN JAMES
DGLESBY WILLIAM
OL IVER LUCIOUS
PACE, CHARLES E
PARRI SHs DERRIL
PARROTT, KEITER
PASSMORE RICH
PATTERSON, ROY
PAYNE CHARLES W
PEACOCK, HARVEY
PEARSON ALFRED
PECKs JOHN
PEEBLES JOHNNY
"PEEBLESs ELVIN
PENNINGTON, D
PEPPERS, JDSEPH
PERAULT » JOSEPH
PERKINS, LEROY
PERRYMAN, LEON
PETERMAN, JOHNN
PETERSON CLEVEL
"PHELPS, RONNIE
PHILLIPS JACKIE
PHILLIPS KRESS
PHILL IPS, SAMMY
PHILLIPS THOMA
_ PHILPOTTS ANNIE
“PIERCE, BETTY A
PIERSCNs GEORGE
PINSON WILLIE
PITRE, TONY PITTMAN ROY
PITTMAN, WILLIE
PITTS, CHRISTIN
POINTER, CHARLE
~ PROVEAUX CARL
NAME
PDSEYs FOSTER
POSTELL, WINNIE
POUNDSs JAMES L
POWELL, J C
POWELL. RALPH E
PRESSLEYs FRANK
PROCTOR CHARLIE
PULLING a08sy
QUEEN SIDNEY
RAGLAND BOBBY
"RAMEY WILLIAM G
RAMPLEY JOSEPH
RAY WILLIAM
REASDN, GLORIA
"REDD, JUDY pio
REDDISH» DONALD
REDFIEL Ds QUESE
REDWINE, HAROLD
"REED CHARLES DA
REESE BARBARA
REESE HAWNP
REE SEs DAVE
"REESE, HORACE =
REEVES MICHAEL
REID MARVIN :
REID, CLEVELAND
RHODES, HOLLIS
RICE RUBY
RICHARDS, DOROT
RICHARDSON JER
"RICHARDSON, CLA
RICKS ROY
RIDLEY JESSIE
RITTER, BILL
RIVERS, LELIA M
ROBERSCN CL EM.
RUBERSDON, GEORG
% %
f
ROBERTS VINCENT
~ ROBERTS, CHARLE
ROBERTS, FRANK
ROBERTSON ERIC
ROB INSON DURAND
ROBINSON TOMMY
ROBINSON, EUGEN
ROBINSONs MARGA
ROGERS MELVIN
ROSS, FRANCES N
ROSS, FREDDIE D
ROWLAND, JIMMY
RUMPH BARBARA
RUTLAND, JEWELL
RYANS, JIMMY LE
SALISBURY, RICH
SAMPLESs RICHY
SANCHEZ ADAM
SANDERSs DAVID
SANDERS, SHEILA
SCHULLs EARNEST
SCOTT EARL
SCOTT EVELENE
SCOTT HARRY JR
SCOTT JERRY
SCOTT. CALVIN L
SCOTT, FRANK SA
SCOTTY, LENA BEL
B) OTHER CASES CONT.
NAME
SCOTT, WILLIE S
SEABROOKS ODELL
SEARS, ROBERT L
SEAYs WILLIE JA
SHADWICKs, JERRY
SHAVERS. MICHAE
SHEFFIELD WALT
“SHELNUTT, FRANK
SHEPPARD RICKY
SHEPPARD VIRGIL
SHIERL ING WILL
"SHINHOLSTER, FR
SHIPMAN, LEON
SHIRLEY ROBBY
SHIVER PEGGY AN
SIMMONS s JOE D
SIMMONS» MNICHAE
SIMMONS» RALPH
SIMMONS, SAMMY
SIMPSONS JOSEPH
SIMS CHARLES
SIMS LARRY
SIMSs ALBERT L
“SMITH BOBBY
SMITH BRIAN
SMITH DANNY
SMITH EDWARD
"SMITH FLORENCE
SMITH GARY
"SMITH, ABE SR
SMITH, EMMETT L
SMITH, FLCRENCE
~ SMITH» GENE LAM
“SMITH, HAROLD
SMITH, HENRY LE
SMITHs HUBERT D
SMITH, JAMES AR
SMITH, JAMES FL
SMI THs JAMES MA
SMITH, JIMMY MI
SMITH, JUNIOR
SMITH,
SMITH, MONTEZ
SMITH, PATRICIA
~~ SMITH, RICHARD
SMITH, TIMOTHY
SNELL, WYLIE II
SND¥, MARY ETTA
SOLOMON ELOIS
LEWIS C
SPAIN, JAMES JR
SPARROW, LCUISE
SPATYZ,
SPENCE,
SPIVEY»
‘JAMES R
‘DAVID DO
ROBBY R
SPROUSE MARSHAL
STACKS
STAINS»
LARRY
STARRs GLADYS
STAYMATE CHERYL
STEPHENS » MUREL
STESIAKs WILMA
‘STEVENS, NAPOLE
STEWART» CGECRGE
STEWART, GRACE
STEWART, JOSEPH
FRANKIE
STIDEM,
STILL +
ROBERT
CARL KEN
STINSON, HENRY
STOKES SANDRA
STOUTAMIREs, DIA
STOVALL DAVID
NAME
STREET GEO 2D
STREET WILLIAM
STA Text Anos THA
STRICKLAND» TOM
~~ SULLENS COY
SUMMERL IN, LEVY
SUTTON WILLIE
SUTTON, JAMES
SWETT JAKE
TANNER JAMES
TARPKINS JOHNNY
TARPK INS ROBERT
TARRANTs MARVIN
TAYLOR PATRICIA
TAYLOR,
TAYLOR»
TAYLOR
TEASLEY,
TEASL EY,
HARVEY
JOE |
MICHAEL
JAMES
MARVIN
TENNYSONs LESLE
TERRY KATIE
THOMAS ALBERT
THOMAS DEXTER
THOMAS EDDIE
THOMAS EMANUEL
THOMAS GEORGE
THOMAS,
THOMAS»
THOMAS,
THOMAS,
THOMAS,
THOMAS,
THOMAS,
THOMAS,
CHARLIE
DCU GL AS
EARL
FRED
KENNETH
LAMAR
LILLIE
SALLIE
"THOMPSON TONY
THOMPSON» ROBER
THORNTON EDDIE
THORNTON RAY
THRASHER, ARTHU
THURMOND, TERRE
TIMBERLAKE, AT
TIMMONS EDDIE
TITTLE,
TCBLER,
JAMES W
ADDL PH
TODD FANNIE
TOLBERT JOSIE
TORRES GORGE
TOYER,
TRICE,
TUCKER,
TUCKER,
TUCKER,
TURMAN,
MICHAEL
WALTER
EARBARA
MILLARD
THOMAS
CTIS AL
TURNER RUDOLPH
- TURNER,
TURNER»
TWITTY,
EDWARD
YONY D
CAROL YN
~ TYNER JAMES
USHERS
"VAUGHN
VICKERS, A
TVILLAG
JIMMY
JUNIOR
dos
B) OTHER CASES CONT.
NAME NAME
; VINCENT RICHARD WILLIAMS, Jaloe
VINES, ALMA TWILL IAMS, RICKY
VINSON, LCUIS WILLIAMS, WILLI
WAITS, RAYMOND WILLIS, THOMAS
WALKER VIRGIL WILSON LACEY WALKER ZACHARY AL ON LA NIN
WALKER, CHARLES WILSON, ROBERT
WALKER, FRANK J WILSON, SAM
_ WALKER, JOSEPH WINGFIELD, LEE
WALKER, LAWRENC WISE. WILLIE B
WALKER, VERNON WITHROW, KIM GR
WALLSs ERNEST J wDOD BETTY
WALTON. ALTON = WOOD» JACK PETE
WAL TONs MAJOR WO0De WILLIE ED
WARD EDWARD JR WOOTEN, ROBERT
WARD HARCLD WORLDS WILLIE
_MWARDs DAVID = WRIGHT GREGORY
WARD, QUEEN WIL WRIGHT, ED LEE
WARE. J D YANCEY ALCNZO
WASHINGTON, CLI YEATER RONALD
WASHINGTON, MAT YOUNG CHARLES
WATSON CALVIN YOUNG TOMMY
WATSON, CHARLES Z IRKLE CAROLYN
WATSON, DONALD 1 LONGSHORE, SA
WATTS WILLIAM —ATTE: GARY : id
WEAVER, WILL IE
WEEKS, SAMUEL R
WELDON, GLENN
WELLS DAVID
WELLS WODDROW
WESSNER MATTHEW
WESTBERRY» CARL
"WESTER FLOYD =
WESTWOOD. JAMES
WHEELER LEONARD
__WHEELER THOMAS
WHIGHAM, WILLIE
WHITAKER, JESSI
WHITE, RONALD
_ WHITENER, CLYDE
WHITFIELD ZEBED
WIGGSs ERNEST
WILCOXe OLIVER
__ WILDER A C
WILEY JOHN JR
WILKERSON, DAVI
WILLIAMS LARRY
_ WILLIAMS LARRY
“WILLIAMS ODELL :
WILLIAMS ROBERT
WILLIAMS WALTER
WILLIAMS, CLAUD
WILLIAMS, HORAC
P B Q FILE
)
KEY
= Life Sentence
= Death Sentence
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
Cig 0 . D2¢ 0
C84 0 he. D27 1
{55 0 -. D36 1
CEE 1 1) D038 0
CE? 1 4d D41 0
C73 0 a, D50 0
C74 0 2 D51 1
C76 0 Z L16 i
C77 1 I) MOS 1
C78 1 4 Z1s 1
79 0 - Z18 oe |
C80 0 1 Z20 H
€32 0 2 008 1
ca: 1 7] 016 0
£84 0 2, D3? 0
C85 0 033 0
CRE 0 034 0
Cay? 0 035 0
£88 0 037 0
cag 0 038 0
C31 6 040 0
C93 0 042 0
C34 0 043 0D
CGS 0 0434 0
C96 0 045 0
C97 0 046 0
C38 0 047 0
ca9 1 048 0
DO 0 04G 0
D002 0 QED 0
D003 1 051 0
Coa 0 052 1
DOE 0 083 0
C07 0 04 0
DO8 0 055 0
DCS 0 OEE 0
yin 0 0S7 0
0 108 4 0 058 0
fi 1 060 0
P13 1 0€1 0
Dla 1 062 0
DS 0 063 0
D1 ¢€ 0 DE4 1
D17 1 06S 0
£18 1 0€E6 0
019 0 074 1
D20 1 201 0
C21 1 202 1
N22 0 211 0
D213 0 323 Q
D024 1 225 0
226 0
Case # Sentence : Case # Sentence
|
227 0 i 324 0
228 0 2% 0
531 0 327 0
237 0 be 0
2329 0 326 0
248 0 339 0
247 0 31 0
249 | 0 333 0 i
250 + HEE 33z 0
BS4 ind 0 33s 0
256 | 0 Ris 0
265 1 342 | 0
275. | 0 350 | +
279 | 1 35 0
261 | 0 3:5 9
gas | 0 361 0
268 | 0 262 1
280 | 0 363 | 0
236 | 0 366 | 0
269 | 0 367 0
300 | 0 369 | 0
303 0 =TH 0
204 0 37 0
312 1 376 0
313 0 377. 0
31€ 0 379 0
317 0 230 0
320 0 383 0
321 0 334 0
322 0 38s 0
387 0
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
agg 0 466 | 0
389 0 467 0
330 0 i 468 0
3G1 8 469 0
392 0.5: 472 0
334 0 473 0
35S 0 474 0
396 0 a4TE 0
397 0 477 0
356 0 480 0
400 0 481 | 0
401 0 482 | 0
402 0 487 | 0
403 0 488 1
404 0 451 1
40€ 0 493 0
407 1 494 1
408 0 4G¢ 1
410 0 486 0
411 0 497 1
412 0 4G 8 0
413 0 459 0
414 0 S00 0
415 0 €01 0
a1é6 0 502 0
415 0 503 0
420 1 S04 0
423 0 SOE 0
42% 0 509 0
426 1 S10 1
427 0 Sit 0
428 0 512 1
429 0 S14 0
434 0 515 1
437 0 S17 0
440 0 S1¢ 0
441 0 520 0
444 0 523 0
446 0 S24 0
447 0 525 0
ase 0 526 0
450 1 x2’ 9
452 0 S35 0
455 0 538 0
458 0 539 0
4€9 1 540 0
—
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
847 | 0 608 | 0
548 0 £0S | 0
549 1 610 1
550 0 611 ly
551 1 £12 0
552 0 614 0
53 | 1 616 0
S5€4 0 £18 i 0
555 0 B19 0
SEE | 0 520 | 0
557 | 0 621 1
558 | 0 £23 ha
589 1 625 0
S€1 0 626 0
562 0 627 1
563 0 628 231
5€4 0 630 0
565 0 632 0
566 0 633 0
S€7 0 634 0
S€8 0 £3e 0
S69 0 636 | 0
£70 0 637 0
571 feng €38 0
572 0 639 0
573 1 640 1
574: ] 1 641 1
576 1 642 | 0
577 1 6473 0
578 1 644 RE!
573 1 645 0
580 | 0 64€ 0
581 1 647 1
582 0 648 0
S83 0 649 0
S84 Qo €50 0
585 0 | 652 0
86 1 653 0
587 | 0 E55 0
8G 0 656 0
590 | 0 657 0
591 0 €=R 0
592 0 659 0
593 1 661 0
59 € 0 EE 2 0
597 0 6632 0
SG E 0 668 0
601 0 EEG 0
602 0 €70 0
6032 0 672 1
606E 0 €73 0
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
674 0 | 750 0
676 0 751 1
£17 0 753 1
58 9.) 755 0.4]
581 3 SE. | 0 | €e4 0 787 | ©
688 0 760 gH]
083 0 764 0 i
ess 0 7ES On |
$33 0 767 0 692 | 0 768 0
694% .. | 0 769 0
537 | 0 770 0
89s 8. 771 8.) 63S 1 774
702: 0 776 1 704 1 777 bt Bay
705 0 275 | 0.
70E€ 0 783 | 0
707 0 784 | 0.
708 0 | 785 | 0 |
710 0 790 | 0]
731 0 791 | 0
712 0 793 | 0
713 0 79€ 0
718 0 796 | Ly]
716 | 0 707 0
7y7 0 7G € 0
718 0 790 0
719 0 800 ~9 720 0 801 0
721 0 802 0
722 o} 804 0
7232 0 BOS 0
T24 0 EOE 0
T2E 0 807 0
226 0 808 0
729 0 210 1
733 0 211 0
732 0 812 0
733 0 g1 3 0
734 0 814 0
TIF 0 815 0
737 6) B13 0
728 0 824 0
7329 0 82 0
740 0 827 0
743 1 E28 0
744 0 829 0
749 0 830 0
746 0 axl 0
748 0
749 0
Case § Sentence Case ¢ Sentence
|
$51 | |
952
854
$55
g56
Q57-
GEg
959
8672
964
066
| SES
S74
875
977
Q78
9890
9R’1
g83
aggé
991
gg 2 “
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
M
M
g
™
O
O
O
O
No
X
o
Rie
R
Ve
R
e)
N
N
N
H
y
e
O
926
13
0
1
0
1
0
943 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
893 1 |
0
0
‘
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
li
PB QPFILLE N
KEY
= Life Sentence
= Death Sentence
Case 4 Sentence Case # Sentence
C16 0 D2%& 0
C54 0 D27 1
£55 0 D36 1
CEef 1 038 0
Ce? 1 D41 0
C73 0 050 0
C74 0 D51 3
CTE C i. 35 <3
CY? 1 M08 1
C78 1 215 1
C7 0 Z18 was A
C890 0 220 1
£32 0 008 1
£8 1 016 0
£84 0 032 0
£85 0 033 6)
CRE 0 034 0
C87 0 035 0
£88 0 037 0
cag 0 038 0
Cai 0 040 fy
Co3 0 042 0
C34 0 043 “0
C95 0 044 0
CI6 0 045 0
C97 0 046 0
C38 0 047 0
C389 1 048 0
DO1 0 049 0
D0O2Z 0 0€ 0
DO3 1 051 0
Co4& 0 052 1
DOE 0 083 0
co7 0 04 0
0O8 0 055 0
DOS 0 OSE 0
D19O 0 DST 0
P11 0 058 0
Di12 1 060 0
D133 1 QO€1l 0
D114 1 062 0
D1S 0 063 0
D1¢€ 0 0€4 1
017 1 0€5 0
C18 1 066 0
D19 0 074 1
D20 1 201 0
c21 1 202 1
£22 0 211 0
D223 0 223 0
024 1 225 0
226 0
4 Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
wy
227 0 324 0
228 0 See 0
231 0 327 0
237 0 328 0
2329 0 329 0
2458 8) 3340 0
287 | 0 331 0
249 0: 232 5 i
250] ei 333 0
254% | 0} =38 0
Sei ° 336 $0.
oe 0 339 0
265 1 242 0
266 1 344 0
267 1 34€ 0
278° | 0 =50 0 |
B78" 0 352 g
277 0 354 &
275 1 5c 9
285 1 359 0
288 | 0 2582 :
260 | 0 353 0
293 0 365 0
2GQ9 | 0 367 0
300 | 0 369 0
303 | 0 =70 0
204 0 371 0
306 0 S73 0
313 0 377 0
314 0 37R 0
pf & 0 37% 0
321 0 334 0
322 0 38s 0
387 0
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
age 0 466 | 0
389 0 467 | 0
330 0 i 468 0
351 0 469 0
392 0 472 0
394 0 473 0
35s 0 &474 0
396 0 47€ 0
397 0 477 0
356 0 480 0
40C 0 481 0
401 0 482 | 0
402 0 487 | 0
407 0 488 1
404 0 451 1
40€ 0 493 0
407 1 434 3
408 0 4G¢< 1
410 0 496 0
411 0 497 1
412 0 ase 0
213 0 453 0
414 0 S00 0
415 0 £01 0
416 0 502 0
420 1 504 0
453 0 E0E 0
426 1 S10 1
427 0 S11 0
428 0 512 1
429 0 S14 0
43232 0 51S 1
437 0 S17 0
440 0 S19 0
441 0 520 0
444 0 323 0
447 0 525 0
ase 0 526 0
450 1 2a 9
451 0 Sanz 0
452 0 aap 0
455 0 538 0
458 0 gre 9
49 1 Ba) 9
460 0 h4l 3
461 0 oss °
462 0 544 0
46% 0 Sae 0
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
547 | 0 e608 | 0
548 0 60S | 0
549 1 610 1
520 20 611 iy oh
551 1 €12 0
552 0 614 0
55 a 3 616 0
s€4 0 ElR 0 |
555 0 619 0. .9
SEE | 0 620 0 |
887 | 0 €21 1
558 | 0 €273 sn
589 1 625 0 xi
SE1 0 626 0 !
562 0} 627 1
S63 0 628 =
5€4 0 630 0
565 0 632 0
566 0 R833 0
Ee? 0 634 Qi]
S€8 0 £3€C | 0 !
569 0 636 | 0
=70 0 637 0
571 el £38 0
572 0 €39 0
573 yd 640 1
574 1 641 1
576 1 642 | 0
577 1 6473 0
578 1 644 0
573 1 645 0
580 | 0 64¢€ 0
581 1 &€47 1
582 0 648 0
583 0 645 0
584 €50 0
585 0 652 0
S86 1 653 0
SRT i» 9 | 655 0
283 0 656 0
590 0 657 0
591 0 EER 0
592 0 659 0
5932 1 661 0
59 € 0 €E2 0
597 0 66 3 0
SG EH 0 668 0
601 0 EEG 0
602 0 €70 0
603 0 672 1
60¢E 0 €73 0
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
674 0 | 750 0
676 0 751 1
650 o | 733 I%,
. { i i
81 1 756 | 0 |
€84 i 0 787 0
688 0 760 0 =]
joni 9 764 0"
2 | 2 | 765 | 0
692 | 0 4:4 S
£238 - 0 769 0
697 od | 770 0
3s pi 771 0.)
702 i 0 i,
704 1 777 1
705 0 275. | 0
70¢ 0 32 | QO |
Lad 5 784 0 |
a
710 0 | Son | 0
731 ] 0 791 +
732 ° 793 2 | 73%
71S | 0 7G & | 0
71% i 0 797 0
7:7 0 79E 0
rf 0 700 0
718 0 800 Bo +
720 0 801 0 721 0 802 0
722 0 804 0
723 0 80S 0
724 0 BOE 0
72% 0 837 0
a 0 808 | 0
731 0 fr : : Bi} i 0
732 0 212 | 0
1%: 0 213 | 0
Lig 0 814 0
~€ 0 815 0
Mog 0 819 0
Es 0 824 0
Li o §23 2 827
743 1 £Eo@ 0
744 0 829 0
745 0 830 0
it : 0: :
749 0
Case # Sentence Case # Sentence
834 S51 | o |
gs 953 1
829 954 0
840 $55 Pe
841 S56 0
844 957 0
B4E GSE 1
848 9
82: 322 ?
852 964 SR
855 966 0
860: | 3ES 0]
BEL | 974 + I
862 S75 0 |
B53 977 0
£71 | 37% 0
877 980 1
878 981 0
280 383 0
ggl 986 0
893 931 1
BGE S02 | 1
RG 6 |
898
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
S04 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
No
Ro
Rt
e
RT
eR
Ve
RV
o
Ro
)
N
A
A
N
ps
re
S
n
r
O
0
0
I
Janmiary 25, 1983
Nicholas G. Dumich, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General i
132 State Judicial Bldg.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Re: Warren McCleskey v. Walter D. Zant
Civ. No. C8l-2434A
Dear Nick:
Enclosed, in reference to Respondent's
Request for Production of Documents and Tangible
Materials, dated January 3, 1983, are the following
items responsive to your request number 3:
(i) a memorandum entitled "Charging and
Sentencing study: Code book and Riles," dated Jan-
vary19, 1983 with: 3 files; Bi
(ii) a memorandum entitled "NIJ Data: aL
Codebooks, Data Files Etc.," dated January 19,
1983;
(iii) "Questionnaire for Procedural
Reform Study" by David C. Baldus, dated September,
(iv) the "Deathdoc File" referred to rad
in earlier memos; EI
ye (v) Six explanatory documents:
fo (a) Listing of Card Box 5
£1 {b) Code for SAS Control Deck
AR (c) Dump of Card Images With SAS
i i] Means of Variables
A (d) SPSS Control Deck Code
(e) SPSS Listing of Variables bs
{f) List of Case Nos. with User E
Memorandum §
fe
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE {2 12) 556-8397 NEW YORK, N.¥.i 100 1.9
Nicholas G. Dumich, Esq.
Pagqei2.
January 25, 1983
In addition to the enclosed, David Baldus
will be sending to you directly a set of the computer
cards for the Procedural Reform Study, and the SAS
computer tape with a document, '"SAS Tape Documenta-
tion," for the Charging and Sentencing Study. (You
will recall that you requested computer cards for
the Procedural Reform Study, and magnetic tapes for
the Charging, and Sentencing Study, in.a telephone
conversation on January 10, 1983).
I believe that this production will
constitute full compliance with your request number
3. We are working to complete production of the
additional items you have requested as promptly as
possible, although we do not hereby waive, of course,
our right to object in timely fashion to the produc.
tion of any items deemed unreasonable or privileged.
Professor Baldus has informed me that he
has received a letter from the Georgia Department
of Pardons and Paroles waiving the confidentiality of
names of those defendants whose cases were used in
the Procedural Reform Study. Therefore, I am enclos-
ing as well a.list of those names.
Please let me know if you have additional
questions concerning this production.
PIN
AN john dill Boger
ccs: Robert: H.. Stroup, Esq.
JCB:agf
encs.
10 COLUMBUS CIRCIE py 2)i586.8397 NEW. YORK S.MN. ¥Y. 110019
State Board of Pardons and Paroles
Mobley Howell EN Mrs. Mamie B. Reese
Chairman LER) Member
James T. Morris
FIFTH FLOOR, EAST TOWER Member
FLOYD VETERANS MEMORIAL BUILDING
2 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., DRIVE, S.E. Floyd Busbee
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334 Member
Michael H. Wing
January 11, 1983 Member
Professor David C. Baldus
College of Law
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York 31210
RE: Authorization to release information to the Attorney General
for the State of Georgia
- Dear Professor Baldus:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Board of Pardons and Paroles
for the State of Georgia has no objection to your releasing, to the Attorney
General for the State of Georgia or any of his assistants, any data or information
which you have obtained from our files, and by this letter, you are specifically
authorized to release said information. It is the understanding of the Board that
said information is needed by the State Attorney General for use in pending federal
litigation relating to the application of capital punishment in the State of Georgia.
If you have any questions pertaining to this authorization, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
bg
Chairman
MH: jc
cc: Mr. Nicholas G. Dumich Mr. Robert H. Stroup
Assistant Attorney General Attorney at Law
132 State Judicial Building 1515 Healey Building
40 Capital Square, S. W. 57 Forsyth Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
v"Mr. John Charles Boger
Attorney at Law
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
x =. /
The University of Jowa
lowa City, lowa 52242 7 /
/
/
M
B
L
R
E
T
I
N
(319) 353-4157 ( ;
College of Law
Donnie A. lee
Executive Officer
Board of Pardons and Paroles
State of Georgia
Room 610
800 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Re: Capital Sentencing Research
Project — Phase II
Dear Mr. Lee:
This letter iz to request the Parole Board's permission to give us
access to the Board's offender files this summer so that we may continue
the research we started last fall. The second phase of the project will
be conducted with the same colleagues, Charles Pulaski of Arizona State
University and George Woodworth of the University of Iowa, who worked
with me on the first phase of the project.
The goal of the second phase of our research is to enlarge the original
study in two ways. First, we want to include more recent cases. The first
study covered cases only through 1977, whereas Phase II will include cases
through 1979. Second, we want to gather data on manslaughter cases. This
will permit us to model 1) the prosecutor's charging decision, 2) the pro-
secutor's decision to accept or reject a plea bargain, and 3) for cases
where the defendant is tried, the judges or jury's decision a) to acquit,
b) to convict as charged, or c) to convict of a lesser included offense.
The data from Phase I of our study only permit us to model the prosecutor's
decision to seek a death sentence (in murder cases where a conviction was
obtained) and the jury's decision to impose a death sentence when it is
sought by the prosecutor.
The universe of cases for Phase II will be some 3,000 offenders convicted
of murder, involuntary or voluntary manslaughter from 1973 through 1979 and
sentenced to Georgia State Prison. The Department of Corrections and Offender
Rehabilitation has provided us with the names of these offenders from which
we intend to draw a sample of approximately 700-800 cases to supplement the
data we already have collected. We would like to collect data on these cases
from the Parole Board's files this summer in the same manner that we did
last fall.
The support for this research is being provided by the Edna McConnell
Clark Foundation which has had a long interest in capital punishment issues. One
condition of this grant, which distinguishes it from the government grant
which supported Phase I of our research, is that we must make the
research results available to the NAACP legal Defense Fund for possible use
Mr. Donnie A. lee
Page 2
in litigation. Because we intend, in any event, to publish the results
of our research, we do not regard this condition as unduly onerous. Moreover,
we will make available to the Parole Board all of our results and the raw
data that we collect.
Our current understanding with respect to the data we have collected at
the Parole Board, is that we will not disclose the names of the offenders
(or other identifying material) to anyone. With respect to Phase II of our
research, we propose to abide by the same understanding. There is a possi-
bility, however, that if the results of our research are used in litigation,
the Attorney General of the State of Georgia may request access to the
identity of particular offenders for the purpose of verifying the accuracy
of the information collected in individual questionnaires. Under these
circumstances, we would like to be able to disclose those names to the
Attorney General with the understanding that they will be used only for
verification purposes and that the names will not be disclosed to any other
person, either in or out of court. In the event such a disclosure were made
to the Attorney General, we believe he would be sensitive to the need for
preserving the confidentiality of the offender's names.
We plan to collect data this summer with a slightly modified version
of the questionnaire that accompanies this letter. The length and subject
matter of the questionnaire, however, remains basically unchanged. When
the modified questionnaire is complete, we plan to submit it and our research
plan to the Attorney General of the State of Georgia and to Dr. Timothy Carr,
Director of Systems Development, Department of Offender Rehabilitation and
invite their suggestions for improvement.
On the basis of our experience this fall, we expect that it will take
our coders from 30 to 40 minutes to complete each questionnaire. If approval
of the Parole Board is given, the data will be collected by four law students
working under the supervision of Ed Gates who worked with Kathy Christian
collecting data in the Parole Board in the fall of 1981.
Our experience last fall indicates that much time is required to pull
the files fram the Parole Board's records. If four people code questionnaires
full time, we estimate that it will take one person full time to pull the
required files. To meet this requirement, we propose to hire one person to
work full time pulling files. If, however, the Parole Board believes that
it is better to assign this task to an employee hired for this job by the
Mr. Donnie A. Lee
Page 3
Board, we would be pleased to provide the funds for his or her salary.
The cooperation of the Parole Board on this project is critical to its
success. The alternative for appealed cases is research in the files of
the State Supreme Court, and for unappealed cases that were tried, the
research would have to be done in county courthouses throughout Georgia.
Not only would we spend an enormous amount of time getting access to these
records, they are frequently voluminous. Our experience indicates it
would require an average of three hours to complete our questionnaires from
court records. Moreover for the cases in which a guilty plea was entered,
court records contain little of the necessary data. Our work this fall
indicates that approximately one-third of the murder cases involved guilty
pleas and we believe that a much larger proportion of the manslaughter
cases plead out. Our only alternative for those cases would be interviews
with defense counsel and prosecutors. This would increase substantially
our cost of data collection and the information we did collect would be
much less reliable than what we could obtain from the Parole Board's files.
If you or the Board see any difficulties with our proposal, we would be
pleased to modify it to meet your requirements. We are very grateful for
the help that you have given us already and hope that we may be able to work
in the Parole Board again this summer.
If I can provide you with any additional information, please write or
call (319) 353-4157.
Sincerely,
Loi ? Reddo
David C. Baldus
Professor of Law
DCB/mss
Ti Fh2 University of iowa
ipwa City, lowa 52242
{319) 353-4157
ART: Shien
SRN Ra
[3
P
e
Ar
on
no
l,
Bs
ri
vg
sa
T
E
u
l
e
A
Toc
k
gh
ry
+8
41
§
College of Law
; August 14, 1988
- "Donnie A. i gig — wees ee - : a oe ahd oe erp aA Fat Bass AC ia
Executive Officer, Parole Board :
fo ~~ State of Georgia — =v.
~ inn. 00 Peachtyes Skyesb re: "Meo EST RE I ae
2 Atimnta, GA 30308 3 ¥atee me Bom pti
Dany 1. Toot
- As you. . suggested. in ¢ our telephone conversation today, i am writing
to request the permission of the Parole Board to give me access to
certain Parole Board Offender Files for research purposes. The research
=~ _ project which I'am conducting with colleagues here at the University
Se of Iowa and.at Arizona State. University - concerns the application of
capital sentencing procedures in Georgia before and after Furman v. Georgia
(1972) . The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which
legitimate and illegitimate factors, such as race, sex and social class,
appear to influence the decisions of prosecutors to seek the death penalty. .
in murder cases and the decisions of juries to impose the death sentence
in those cases. The second purpose of the study is to determine the
extent to which prosecutors and juries are treating similarly situated
“people the same. I have enclosed as Appendix Ato this letter a recent
article, which I wrote with my colleagues on this proposed research
project, which demonstrates the type of analysis we will conduct with
respect to this second question. The procedures which we plan to follow
in conducting this study are spelled out in more detail in Appendix B to
this letter which is the research proposal submitted to the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration for support of this research. In July of this
year, LEAA awarded us a grant of $63,000 to support this research.
Our research design contemplates the analysis of two data sets. The
first is comprised of 330 cases which were appealled into the Georgia Supreme
Court between 1973 and 78. Most of the data on this data set have already
been collected. The balance will be collected in the Georgia Supreme
Cot in the fall of 1980,
The second data set includes information on approximately 700 offenders,
sentenced between 6/71 and 6/78, most of whou did not appeal their cases
into the Georgia Supreme Court. All of these offenders were convicted of
murder. For each of these cases we have obtained substantial background
information from the Georgia Department of Offender Rchabilitation. A letter
Donnie A. lee
August 14, 1980
Page 2
from George H. Cox, Director of the Office of Research and Evaluation,
approving release of the Correction's data to us is attached to this
letter at Appendix C. The records of the Department of Offender Rehabil-
itation have been very helpful but they do not include information on
the facts of the crime for which the defendant was convicted. We are
advised by the Department of Corrections personnel that this information
is available, in most cases, in the files of the Georgia Parole Board.
It is our hope to obtain the information about the nature of the crime
and conbine it with the information we have already obtained fron the
Department of Offender Rehabilitation.
The specific information which we hope to obtain from your files is
specified in the questionnaire (at Appendix D of this letter) which our
coders will use if access to the Parole Board's files is obtained. The
questionnaire has 28 questions relating to the defendant's offense. We
have had this questionnaire pre-tested in several recent records in the
Department of Corrections which contain substantially the same information
as your files. On the basis of this pre-test, we estimate that it will
take approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire for each case.
If the approval of the Parole Becard is given, the data will be collected
by two full-time researchers -- Kathy Christian-and Edward Gates. We
estimate that it will take them approximately four to five weeks to collect
the needed information.
As noted above, the information which we propose to collect will be
merged into a data set that we have already obtained from the Department
of Corrections. The identity of the inmates on whom the data will be
collected will be kept absolutely confidential. The only reason we need
the name of the offender on our questionnaire is to make sure that we
correctly match the information obtained from the Parole Board with that
obtained from the Department of Corrections. The offender's name wil
not be included in our final data set. The only identifying information
on the tape will be the inmate's number and cur case numer.
The assistance of the Parole Board in this project is extreamely
important to its success. Much of the empirical work heretofore done
capital sentencing in Georgia and elsewhere has been flawed by a lack
detailed information about the nature of the offenses involved, thus
making valid camparisons between cases difficult. For the many cases
in which the defendant pled guilty, the infomation in the Parole Board's
file is the only reliable source of infcrmation bout the crime. Moreover,
even in those cases where there was a trial which wes not appealled to the
Georgia Supreme Court, data collection would require our going to the
records of the various counties and having to read the entire trial transcript.
Donnie A. Iee
August 14, 1980
Page 3
This would substantially increase the cost of data collection and vould
increase the risk of factual error in our data set.
We would, of course, be pleased to share all the results of our
research and analysis with the Parole Board and its staff. Moreover, we
would be pleased to provide your staff with a machine readable copy of
the data which we collect.
If we can provide you with any additional information concerning our
request, please write or call collect (319) 353-4157. Also, I plan to be
in Atlanta in mid-September at which time, if it is convenient for you,
I would very much like to discuss our request with you personally.
Sincerely,
J)
i WE TE
ANS AA wil Wf No lll
David C. Baldus
Professor of Iaw
State Board of Pardons and Paroles
JAMES T. MORRIS fas 2 J. O. Partain, Jr.
Chairman ih Member
ie Mrs. Mamie B. Reese
ROOM 610 Member
800 PEACHTREE STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308
Floyd Busbee
Member
September 18, 1980
Mobley Howell
David C. Baldus, Professor of Law Member
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Dear Mr. Baldus:
The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has agreed to participate in your
Study of Procedural Reforms as requested in your letter of August 14, 1980.
I would like to remind you of the confidentiality of Board files and request
the results of the study be made available to the Board.
I hope our files will be useful.
Sincerely,
onnie A. Lee
Executive Officer
DL:gw
4
The University of lowa
' fowa City, lowa 52242
L
a
e
m
(319) 353-4157 ;
College of Law RTT
Donnie A. lee
Executive Officer
Board of Pardons and Paroles
State of Georgia
Room 610
800 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Re: Capital Sentencing Research
Project — Phase II
Dear Mr. Lee:
This letter iz to request the Parole Board's permission to give us
access to the Board's offender files this summer so that we may continue
the research we started last fall. The second phase of the project will
be conducted with the same colleagues, Charles Pulaski of Arizona State
University and George Woodworth of the University of Iowa, who worked
with me on the first phase of the project.
The goal of the second phase of our research is to enlarge the original
study in two ways. First, we want to include more recent cases. The first
study covered cases only through 1977, whereas Phase II will include cases
through 1979. Second, we want to gather data on manslaughter cases. This
will permit us to model 1) the prosecutor's charging decision, 2) the pro-
secutor's decision to accept or reject a plea bargain, and 3) for cases
where the defendant is tried, the judges or jury's decision a) to acquit,
b) to convict as charged, or c) to convict of a lesser included offense.
The data from Phase I of our study only permit us to model the prosecutor's
decision to seek a death sentence (in murder cases where a conviction was
obtained) and the jury's decision to impose a death sentence when it is
sought by the prosecutor.
The universe of cases for Phase II will be some 3,000 offenders convicted
of murder, involuntary or voluntary manslaughter from 1973 through 1979 and
sentenced to Georgia State Prison. The Department of Corrections and Offender
Rehabilitation has provided us with the names of these offenders from which
we intend to draw a sample of approximately 700-800 cases to supplement the
data we already have collected. We would like to collect data on these cases
from the Parole Board's files this summer in the same manner that we did
last fall.
The support for this research is being provided by the Edna McConnell
Clark Foundation which has had a long interest in capital punishment issues. One
condition of this grant, which distinguishes it from the government grant
which supported Phase I of our research, is that we must make the
research results available to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund for possible use
Mr. Donnie A. lee
Page 2
in litigation. Because we intend, in any event, to publish the results
of our research, we do not regard this condition as unduly onerous. Moreover,
we will make available to the Parole Board all of our results and the raw
data that we collect.
Our current understanding with respect to the data we have collected at
the Parole Board, is that we will not disclose the names of the offenders
(or other identifying material) to anyone. With respect to Phase II of our
research, we propose to abide by the same understanding. There is a possi-
bility, however, that if the results of our research are used in litigation,
the Attorney General of the State of Georgia may request access to the
identity of particular offenders for the purpose of verifying the accuracy
of the information collected in individual questionnaires. Under these
circumstances, we would like to be able to disclose those names to the
Attorney General with the understanding that they will be used only for
verification purposes and that the names will not be disclosed to any other
person, either in or out of court. In the event such a disclosure were made
to the Attorney General, we believe he would be sensitive to the need for
preserving the confidentiality of the offender's names.
We plan to collect data this summer with a slightly modified version
of the questionnaire that accompanies this letter. The length and subject
matter of the questionnaire, however, remains basically unchanged. When
the modified questionnaire is complete, we plan to submit it and our research
plan to the Attorney General of the State of Georgia and to Dr. Timothy Carr,
Director of Systems Development, Department of Offender Rehabilitation and
invite their suggestions. for improvement.
On the basis of our experience this fall, we expect that it will take
our coders from 30 to 40 minutes to complete each questionnaire. If approval
of the Parole Board is given, the data will be collected by four law students
working under the supervision of Ed Gates who worked with Kathy Christian
collecting data in the Parole Board in the fall of 1981. |
Our experience last fall indicates that much time is required to pull
the files from the Parole Board's records. If four people code questionnaires.
full time, we estimate that it will take one person full time to pull the
required files. To meet this requirement, we propose to hire one person to
work full time pulling files. If, however, the Parole Board believes that
it is better to assign this task to an employee hired for this job by the
Mr. Donnie A. Lee
Page 3
Board, we would be pleased to provide the funds for his or her salary.
The cooperation of the Parole Board on this project is critical to its
success. The alternative for appealed cases is research in the files of
the State Supreme Court, and for unappealed cases that were tried, the
research would have to be done in county courthouses throughout Georgia.
Not only would we spend an enormous amount of time getting access to these
records, they are frequently voluminous. Our experience indicates it
would require an average of three hours to complete our questionnaires from
court records. Moreover for the cases in which a guilty plea was entered,
court records contain little of the necessary data. Our work this fall
indicates that approximately one-third of the murder cases involved quilty
pleas and we believe that a much larger proportion of the manslaughter
cases plead out. Our only alternative for those cases would be interviews
with defense counsel and prosecutors. This would increase substantially
our cost of data collection and the information we did collect would be
much less reliable than what we could obtain from the Parole Board's files.
If you or the Board see any difficulties with our proposal, we would be
pleased to modify it to meet your requirements. We are very grateful for
the help that you have given us already and hope that we may be able to work
in the Parole Board again this summer.
If I can provide you with any additional information, please write or
call (319) 353-4157.
Sincerely,
£) ocd P Beldlio
David C. Baldus
Professor of Law
DCB/mss
Thz2 University of lowa
lowa City, lowa 52242
{319) 353-4157
R
T
I
I
L
I
A
College of Law
August 14, 1980
DOnALE oh To ual rem : : hs 2 Gib ive men i IE Ein 2 we oe
“Executive Officer, Parole Board ;
Bats of Geoxgla iri
- Ji B00 Peachtyee Styeeb =: .-. - ine Ta TIRE TET Ll,
2 Atimata, GA 30308 2 Si rn me
Dear ir. toe
. As you. suggested. in our telephone conversation today,” I am wri ting
to request the permission of the Parole Board to give me access to
certain Parole Board Offender Files for research purposes. The research
wo. =project which I'am conducting with colleagues here at the University
om of Iowa and at Arizona State University concerns the ‘application of
capital sentencing procedures in Georgia before and after Furman v. Georgia
(1972) . The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which
legitimate and illegitimate factors, such as race, sex and social class
appear to influence the decisions of prosecutors to seek the death penalty. .
in murder cases and the decisions of juries to impose the death sentence
in those cases. The second purpose of the study is to determine the
extent to vhich prosecutors and juries are treating similarly situated
‘péople the same. I have enclosed as Appendix Ato this letter a recent
article, which I wrote with my colleagues on this proposed research
ovroject, which demonstrates the type of analysis we will conduct with
respect to this second question. The procedures which we plan to follow
in conducting this study are spelled out in more detail in Appendix B to
this letter which is the research proposal submitted to the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration for support of this research. In July of this
year, LEAA awarded us a grant of $63,000 to support this research.
Our research design contemplates the analysis of two data sets. The
first is comprised of 330 cases which were appealled into the Georgia Supreme
Court between 1973 and 78. Most of the data on this data set have already
been collected. The balance will be collected in the Georgia Supreme
Court in the fall of 1980.
The second data set includes information on approximately 700 offenders,
sentenced between 6/71 and 6/78, most of whow did not appeal their cases
into the Georgia Supreme Court. All of these offenders were convicted of
murder. For each of these cases we have obtained substantial background
information from the Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation. A letter
Donnie A. Lee
August 14, 1980
Page 2
from George H. Cox, Director of the Office of Research and Evaluation,
approving release of the Correction's data to us is attached to this
letter at Appendix C. The records of the Department of Offender Rehabil-
itation have been very helpful but they do not include information on
the facts of the crime for which the defendant was convicted. We are
advised by the Department of Corrections personnel that this information
is available, in most cases, in the files of the Georgia Parole Board.
Tt is our hope to obtain the information about the nature of the crime
and carbine it with the information we have already obtained from the To ARTS
Department of Offender Rehabilitation.
The specific information which we hope to obtain from your files is
specified in the questionnaire (at Appendix D of this letter) which our
coders will use if access to the Parole Board's files is obtained. The
cuestionnaire has 28 questions relating to the defendant's offense. We
have had this questionnaire pre-tested in several recent records in the
Department of Corrections which contain substantially the same information
as your files. On the basis of this pre-test, we estimate that it will
take approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire for each case.
If the approval of the Parole Beocard is given, the data will be collected
by two full-time researchers —- Kathy Christian and Fdward Gates. We
estimate that it will take them approximately four to five weeks to collect
the needed information.
As noted above, the information which we propose to collect will be
merged into a data set that we have already obtained from the Department
of Corrections. The identity of the inmates on whom the data will be
collected will be kept absolutely confidential. The only reason we need
the name of the offender on our questionnaire is to make sure that we
correctly match the information obtained from the Parole Board with that
obtained from the Department of Corrections. The offender's name wil
not be included in our final data set. The only identifying information
on the tape will be the inmate's nurber and cur case nuer.
The assistance of the Parole Board in this project is extramely
important to its success. Much of the empirical work heretofore done on
capital sentencing in Georgia and elsewhere has been flawed by a lack of
detailed information about the nature of the offenses involved, thus
making valid comparisons between cases difficult. For the many cases ila
in which the defendant pled guilty, the information in the Parole Board's
file is the only reliable source of infcrmation about the crime. Moreover,
even in those cases where there was a trial which was not appealled to the
Georgia Supreme Court, data collection would require our going to the
records of the various counties and having to read the entire trial transcript.
Donnie A. lee
Avgust 14, 1980
Page 3
This would substantially increase the cost of data collection and vould
increase the risk of factual error in our data set.
We would, of course, be pleased to share all the results of our
research and analysis with the Parole Board and its staff. Moreover, we
would be pleased to provide your staff with a machine readable copy of
the data which we oollect.
If we can provide you with any additional information concerning our
request, please write or call collect (319) 353-4157. Also, I plan to be
in Atlanta in mid-September at which time, if it is convenient for you,
I would very much like to discuss our request with you personally.
Sincerely,
! 4 J ) ois
Aad 7 lil
David C. Baldus
Professor of Iaw
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
Mund 10Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 (212) 585-8397
via Express Mail
December 16, 1982
Dr. David Baldus
c/o Neil Billig
3067 Hazelton Drive
Falls Church, Virginia 22044
Dear Dave:
Fniclosed is a copy of the State's first
set of interrogatories in McCleskey, not exactly
ideal holiday reading. If your review of these
questions prompts you to call me, you're welcome
Lo try ‘at my mother's home in North Carolina ( (704)
782-8218) anytime from December 24 through 28; there-
after until the first of the new year, I'll be avallable
at work ((212)586-8397) orat my home ((201)746-8645).
If you have no major questions about the
interrogatories, we will talk about them during our
meeting here in: New York in .early January.
Have a pleasant holiday stay in Towa. I
look forward to seeing you and your wife next month.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
\Jghn Charles Boger
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tar purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 e (212) 586-8397
November 30, 1982
Professor David Baldus
College of Law
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York 13210
Dear Dave:
I hope you had a grand, restful Thanksgiving,
and. that your return to classes and research has been
eased somewhat by knowledge of Judge Forrester's
revised hearing schedule in the McCleskey case. I am
enclosing two documents for your information. The
first is a copy of the State of Georgia's initial motion
for discovery filed on November 19, 1982 in McCleskey,
which I only received vesterday. I trust that at LDF
we can hammer out a much more specific, and more restricted,
list of documents to be sought by the State before they
submit their formal motion for production of documents
at the end of the first week in December.
I am also including a copy of State v. Copeland,
the Supreme. Court of South Carolina's first effort to
articulate its appellate sentence review policy (or non-
policy). Thought you'd be especially interested in South
Carolina's fatalistic, impossible-to-do-this-sort-of-thing
approach.
I plan to call you before the end of this week
with an update on our thinking about a revised schedule
in "McCleskey. Until then, best regards.
Sincerely,
WwWAn Charles Boger
JCB: agf
encs.
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
JOHN R. MYER 1515 HEALEY BUILDING
57 FORSYTH ST., N. Ww.
ROBERT H. STROUP ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
GARY FLACK 404/522-1934
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
November 19, 1982
BY HAND
Honorable J. Owen Forrester
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
75 Spring Street, S. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30335
Re: McCleskey v. Zant, Civil Action No. C81-2434A
Dear Judge Forrester:
This letter is written in response to Respondent's Motion for
Discovery and for a Continuance, which arrived in this morn-
ing's mail. While petitioner intends to file a formal response
to that motion, in light of the rapidly-approaching hearing
date, and the need of the parties to be advised of the Court's
ruling with respect to the State's request for a continuance,
the petitioner is filing this letter to advise the Court of
the outlines of the petitioner's position with respect to the
State's two requests.
Petitioner will not oppose some reasonable discovery of the
evidence to be offered by the petitioner. Petitioner believes,
in fact, that the hearing will likely benefit if the State, as
well as the petitioner, is prepared to address in detail the
comprehensive social science evidence which supports peti-
tioner's constitutional contentions. Petitioner does intend to
file a timely formal response regarding the scope of the dis-
covery requested by the State in paragraph 9" 8F Its motion,
because respondent's motion for discovery is in part ambiguous
and requests some items that would appear burdensome and un-
warranted to produce. Nevertheless, petitioner will make a
good faith effort to provide respondent with appropriate materials
pertinent to the hearing.
Since it would be impossible to complete any reasonable discovery
before December 8 or 9, 1982, respondent's request for a continuance
appears warranted, and petitioner will not oppose it.
In summary, petitioner's formal response, to be filed shortly, will
Honorable J. Owen Forrester Page Two
November 19, 1982
not oppose some reasonable discovery that will not unduly
burden petitioner's experts. Nor will the petitioner oppose
the limited, 60-day continuance requested by the State to
accomplish discovery.
If the Court is inclined to grant some discovery and permit a
continuance, perhaps a discovery conference would be an
expeditious way of defining the scope and limits of that discovery.
Very truly yours,
[Cotert X. Hoes
Robert H. Stroup
RHS/1
cc: John C. Boger, Esq.
Nicholas G. Dumich, Esq.
11/4/82
MEMORANDUM
To: Jack Boger
From: Linda Winkler
Re: How to prove to the satisfaction of the
federal courts that the death penalty is
discriminatorily and/or arbitrarily
imposed.
I: Questions
Studies show that a person convicted of killing a
black person is less likely to be sentenced to death than a
person convicted of killing a white person. Noting problems
with the studies, courts have been reluctant to rely on them
as conclusive evidence of the unconstitutional discrimination
and arbitrariness wrought by death penalty statutes. This
memo addresses the issue of what we must present to the court
to prove to its satisfaction that a state's death penalty law
is applied in an unconstitutional manner.
Specifically, what elements must be proved to show
that a state’sdeath penalty statute is applied (1) discriminatorily
in violation of the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
and (2) arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the eighth
and fourteenth amendments' cruel and unusual punishment prohibition?
And what evidence must be presented to prove the existence of each
of the elements?
II. ‘Introductory Summary
To prove that a statesdeath penalty statute iis
applied discriminatorily, i.e., according to. the victim's race,
in violation of the equal protection clause, one must show (1)
that the statute has a racially disproportionate impact which
(2) results from intentional discriminalion. The relevant
leading cases do not make clear just precisely what evidence
is sufficient to prove the existence of these elements. But
they do list the deficiencies of the evidence -- primarily
statistical studies -- that has been offered in proof of
egual protection violation claims. And fromithis list, ’'71 have
inferred atileast some of the characteristics that evidence
must possess in order to successfully substantiate a claim that
the death penalty is imposed in a manner which violates the
equal protection clause.
It is less clear what elements must be proved or what
evidence presented to substantiate a claim that a state death
penalty statute is arbitrarily and capriciously applied in viola-
tion of the eighth and fourteenth amendments' cruel and unusual
punishment prohibition. The relevant cases focus not on what must
be Drove. and how, but rather on whether such a claim may be con-
sidered by a federal habeas court in the first place.
IT. Evidentiary Requirements for Proof of Fourteenth
Amendment Equal Protection Clause Violation
Preliminarily, it should be noted that the party who
claims that the death penalty is discriminatorily imposed bears
the burden of proving the validity of the claim. Maxwell v. Bishop,
308: F.2d 138, 147.{8th Cir. 1968). " "And a pergon hag standing to
Claim an equal protection violation, "even though he is not a
member of the class allegedly discriminated against, because
such discrimination, if proven, impinges on his constitutional
right under the eighth and fourteenth amendments not to be subjected
to cruel and unusual punishment." Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578
F.24.582, 612:05th:- Cir. 1978). citing Taylor v. Louisiana, 419° U.S.
Dealh fow :
522.1975). "¥V: petitioners may Therefore raise equal protection
clause claim even where the discrimination alleged is based upon
the race of the victims. ‘McCorgquodale vv.” Balkcom, 525 FF. Supp.
431 (N.D. Ga. 1981).
To. prove that ‘as applied a state's death penalty law is
discriminatory and hence violative of the equal protection clause,
one must show that it has a racially disproportionate impact and
that its implementers have a racially discriminatory intent or
purpose, See. tie, J. Britton Vv. Rogers, 631 ¥.20 572 (8th -Cir.:1230)
rt A ee
and Spinkellink v. Wainwright, supra, 578 F.2d at. 615, su-rz2,
citing Washington 'v. Davis, 426 U.8.:229 (1976) and Village
of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.,
229.0.8. 252 (1977).
For a statistical study showing racially disproportionate
impact of a state death penalty statute to be accepted by a court
as reliable evidence of discrimination, it should satisfy a
number of requirements. Generally speaking, the study should
credibly show that "defendants convicted of similar crimes in
similar circumstances were sentenced to death only [or at least
almost only] when their victims were white." House v. Balkcom,
slip opinion at 12 (N.D. Ga. 1979) (Magistrate Forrester). More
specifically, to ‘accomplish this general goal, the study should
take into account. several IAT
1) It should catalogue cases not according
to incidents involving homicides reported to
have: occurred in the state, but:rather according
to whether charges or indictments grew out of the
reported incidents and whether charges were for
murder under aggravating circumstances, murder in
which no. aggravating circumstances were alleged,
voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter,
or other offenses. Smith v., Balkcom, 671 F.2d
858,:.860'nN.33 (5th Cir. 1982). Cages resulting in not
guilty verdicts should be removed from the study's data.
Id. The study should concern cases of people convicted
1l/ This+list ‘of evidentiary requirements{is not exhaustive:
it is simply a stringing together of: bits ‘and pieces gleaned
or inferred from discussions contained in the leading cases.
not only of felony murders but also of other crimes.
House v. Balkcom, supra, at 8... And it should take
into account prosecutorial discretion as to what
charges were filed and whether to take the case to
the grand jury, and whether the prosecutor sought the
imposition of the death penalty. Spinkellink Vv.
Wainwright, supra, 578 F.2d at 612-613,
2) .The data compiled should "reflect myriad
aggravating and mitigating factors that the sentencing
authority is obligated to take into account when deter-
mining whether or not to impose the death penalty."
House v. Balkcom, supra, at 14-15; see also Spinkellink
vv. Walnwright, supra, 578 F.2d. at 613. It should be
"refined to select. incidents in which mitigating
circumstances were advanced or found or those cases
in which evidence of aggravating circumstances was
sufficient to warrant submission of the death penalty
vel non to a jury." i: Smith vv. Balkcom,. supra, 671 F.2d
at 860 n.33.
3) The study should concern a substantial number of
cases (significantly more than 55) occurring in a
stratified random sample of counties in the state
whose death penalty statute is challenged. Maxwell wv.
Bishop, 287 FF. Supp. 710,:720 (E.Ds:Ark.. 1966), This
sample of counties should include the county in which
the sentencing of the petitioner raising the discrimina-
tion claim occurred. Maxwell v, Bishop, 398 F.2d 138,
147 {3th Cir. 1968),
4) The data should be adjusted for reversals
of convictions and sentencing decisions and, of course,
be internally consistent. House v. Balkcom, supra,
at 9... That 1s, for instance, the sum of the raw
2/
data on each chart should be the same.
This statistical evidence of the death penalty law's
racially discriminatory impact is admissible only on condition
that it be shown that : fintentional or purposeful
discrimination occurred." House v. Balkcom, supra, at. 13.
What evidence must be proffered to prove the. existence
of ‘racially discriminatory intent or purpose? .Several. cases
suggest that if ‘the statistical studies presented have taken
account of: allirelevant. variables SRAins, ; ed above) and still
show that the death penalty is imposed in a blatantlyYdispropor-
tionate manner, then the existence of the necessary discriminatory
intent may be inferred. Smith v, Balkcom, supra, 671 F.2d at
859; House v. Balkcom, supra, at 14-15; Spinkellink v. Wainwright,
supra, 578:Fu.2d at 615, quoting Washington v. Davis, supra, 426
U.S... 8c 242% Most recently, the Fifth Circuit-held that, In
some instances, circumstantial or statistical evidence of racially
disproportionate impact may be so strong that the results permit
no other inference but that they are the product of a racially
discriminatory intent or purpose." Smith v. Ballkcom, supra,
671 F.2d at 859, ‘citing Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
Housing Development Corp. supra, 429 U.S. at 266. Such instances
2/ One ‘early cage mentions what might be construed as an additional
evidentiary requirement. In both the district and appellate court
decisions of Maxwell v. Bishop, supra, the courts require that ito
prove an equal protection clause violation, petitioner show that
he himself was the victim of racial discrimination, i.e., that
his jury acted .discriminatorily.” Later cases do not appear to
have adopted this requirement.
exist, the court continued, only where the data that demonstrates
the discriminatory impact has taken into account all relevant
"racially neutral variables.” .. Id.r Ross v. Hopper, 538. F. Supp.
105,:107 (S5.D. Ga. 1882). Only then can a courl be sure that
the apparent discrimination is not caused by constitutionally
permissible, non-racial factors. And only then is the existence
of discriminatory intent or purpose and: a violation of the! equal pro-
Bl
tection. clause proved. House v. Balkcom, supra, at 14-15;
Spinkellink v, Wainwright, supra, 578 ¥.24 at 615.
IV. Evidentiary Requirements for Gaining Review of and
Proving a Claimiof Violation of the Eighth and Four-
teenth Amendments' Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Prohibition,
A person who asserts the claim that a state's death
penalty has been imposed arbitrarily and capriciously in violation
of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth and
fourteenth amendments must first convince the federal habeas court
to hear and review his claim. This is because in Spinkellink v.
Wainwright, supra, 578 F.2d at 605, the Fifth Gircult interpreted
the Supreme Court's death penalty decisions in Furman, Gregg,
Proffitt,. Jurek, Woodson, and Roberts to mean that if a stale
follows a properly drawn statute in imposing the death penalty,
then the statute is deemed to be applied in a conclusively non-
4 /
arbitrary, andcnond¢apricious manneraT:
37 Btitton v. Rogers, supra, takes a somewhat less generous
approach. Citing Village of ‘Arlington Heights: v. Metropolitan
Housing Development Corp., supra and Washington v. Davis, supra,
the court stated, "While evidence of differential treatment may
support ‘a finding of discriminatory purpose,’ such evidence; alone
will not suffice, absent especially striking clrcumstances.
631 <P 2d. at 577.
4&/ The full names and:citations of these Supreme Couri death
penalty cases are: Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); Gregg
v.uGeorgia, i428 U.S. 153 (X976) ; Proffitt v, Bleorida, 428 U.s.
242 {19767 Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 {1976Y; Woodson v. North
Carolina, 428 U.S.: 280 (1976); and Roberts v. Loulsiana, 428: U.S.
325 11976).
And a claim that a death penalty law is unconstitutionally
and arbitrarily applied is therefore not subject To review
by a federal habeas court.
How, then, does a claimant persuade a federal habeas
court to review his eighth amendment claim? He can either challenge
Spinkellink as a no longer controlling precedent or provide evidence
to show that his case fits into one of the two.exceptional ‘instances
in which, the Spinkellink court ruled, judicial review is still
required.
The claimant can challenge the Spinkellink interpretation
by citing the contents of a footnote contained in Proffitt wv.
Walnwright, 685 F.24:1227 (11th Cir. 1982). ‘The footnote gtates
in part,
In view of Godfrey [v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980),
a case in which the Supreme Court reviewed a state
court's application of an aggravating factor under
its state's capital sentencing statute], we can only
conclude that the language in the Spinkellink opinion
precluding federal courts from reviewing state courts’
application of capital sentencing criteria is no longer
sound precedent.
685: F.2d at 1227, n.52." But: the claimant al leastishould be
mindful of the fact that a lower federal court has held that
even in light of Godfrey, Spinkellink is controlling precedent.
Rogs.v. Hopper, 538 TF. Supp. 1058, 107 n.2 (S.D.Ga, 1982).
Alternatively, he can attempt to show either "some
specific act or acts evidencing intentional or purposeful racial
discrimination against him . w+ either because of his own.race
or the race of his victim" or "that the facts and circumstances
of his case are so clearly undeserving of capital punishment
that to impose it would be patently unjust and would shock the
conscience." Spinkellink v. Wainwright, supra, 578 F.2d at 614
n.40 and 606 n.28. If he can provide evidence in support of
either of these according to. Spinkellink,"” the federal court
should intervene and review substantively the sentencing
decisions." Id. at 614, n.40. The Spinkellink '"'no review"
rule and exceptions have been followed in a number of post-
ine 30
Spinkellink decisions. 'McCorquodale v. Balkcom, 525 F., Supp.
408, 426 {N.D. Ga. 1981); House v. Balkcom, supra, at 16-1;
Smith v. Balkcom, 660 F.2d 573, 585 (5th Cir. 1981); Ross Vv.
Hopper, "538" FF. Supp. at; 107.
Once a claimant succeeds in persuading a federal court
to review his claim concerning the arbitrary application of the
state death: penalty statute, he must prove his claim. Just what
evidence he must produce to demonstrate to a court's satisfaction
the validity of his eighth and fourteenth amendment. claim .is unclear.
Only two cases appear to discuss the evidence that is required or
the nature of the review. In House v. Balkcom, supra, at 16, Magistrate
Forrester stated that
[T]o prove that the sentencing authority
acted arbitrarily and capriciously on the
basis of any sort of empirical analysis
would require a case-by-case comparison
of all other cases with the present one.
This case-by-case comparison, of course,
would have to focus oni the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances present in
each matter where the sentencing authority
[acting under current statutory provisions]
imposed or did not impose the death penalty
when asked. to.
And to measure "potential arbitrariness on the part of the sentencing
authority" he implied, evidentiary data must take into account factors
guch as prosecutorial discretion, differences in the circumstances
of the cases, and misclassification by police or correctional
agencies. 1d.
In: Spinkellink, he Fifth Circuit. appears to imply that
in the few CARS where a federal habeas Gone should review an
arbitrariness claim, it bears the responsibility of undertaking a
case-by-case comparison of the claimant's case with other death
penalty cases in the state. The court should compare the facts of
the claimant's case. with.the facts of the other cases 10 see
whether the state's death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary
and/or capricious. Fashion in violation of: the cruel and unusual
punishment prohibition, e.g., whether in cases with similar
circumstances the death penalty is only sometimes imposed.
ap i
Where the arbitrariness that at mank alleges
governs the imposition of the death penalty is based on the
Fact that. the legally irrelevant i criteria of the race of the
victims of the crimes is what determines who will be sentenced:
to death, the court is obliged to undertake more specified
comparisons. For example,
[I]n order to ascertain through federal
habeas corpus proceedings if the death penalty
had been discriminatorily imposed upon a petitioner
whose murder victim was white, a district court [must]
compare the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's
case would be [sic] facts and circumstances of all
other [state] death penalty cases involving black
victims inorder to determine if the first degree
murderers in those cases were equally or more
deserving to die.
5/
578 P.2d at.613. A statistical study that catalogues cases
according to their circumstances, satisfies the reliability criteria
listed on pages 3-5 v ’and shows that the death penalty is arbitrarily
imposed according to the legally impermissible factor of the victim's
race would no doubt assist the court in recognizing the validity
of the petitioner's claim.
5/ One final note: the Massachusetts case of District Attorney for
Suffolk District vi. Watson, 411 N.BE.2d 1274 48.3.C.. Ma. 1980): strongly
supports the claim that the death penalty is unconstitutionally
arbitrarily ‘and discriminatorily imposed. 1t should therefore be
cited by ‘a person making such a claim. While the case discusses
whether the Massachusetts death penalty violates that State's con-
stitution, its reasoning is applicable to claims of eighth and
fourteenth amendment violations. It states, for example, that since
the discretionary powers of police officers, prosecutors, defense
counsel and trial judges exercised at different points in the
criminal justice process are left unguided by (even post-Furman)
death penalty statutes, ghance Ne canrice inevitably influence the
sentencing decision. Th ol LO TK ‘vthe Massachusetts death penalty
statute is unconstitutional. ny N.E. 2d -at-1288.,
brie nah lat A
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
efense und 10Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 (212) 586-8397
egal
July 2,:.1982
Professor Samuel R. Gross
Stanford University Law School
stanford, California 94305
Dear Sam:
It was great to see you at ‘Airlie: we
should have such a conference about every six
weeks. I'm enclosing copies of all papers filed
to date in Warren McCleskey's case in Georgia
which, you will see, is the case in which local
counsel recently entered David Baldus' affidavit.
LDF has been keeping a very low profile in the
matter, but if Judge Forrester wants a hearing
on arbitrariness/racial discrimination, that may
have to change.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
n Charles Boger
JCB:agf
encs.
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
ye NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
fund 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 « (212) 586-8397 egal
March:22,:.1982
Robert Stroup, Esq.
1515 Healey Bldg.
57 Forsyth Street N.U.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Bob:
Enclosed is a copy of People v. Ramos, Crim.
21352," (Cal. Supreme Court, Jan. 25, 19382) which
strikes down the so-called Briggs Amendment be-
cause 1t permits the jury to speculate on parole
and pardon possibilities during its sentencing
deliberations.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Nis nn Charles 'Boger
JCB/ jb
Encl.
a
’
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 (212) 586-8397
egal und
Mareh 18, 1982
Robert Stroup, Esq.
1515 Healey Bldg.
57 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Warren McCleskey (Georgia)
Dear Bob:
Enclosed are copies of my standard discovery memorandum
and some materials on discovery and on the right to a federal
evidentiary hearing when state proceedings have not been full
and fair. Also included is Jim Liebman's Federal Habeas
Corpus Manual, which at pp. 237-300 discusses discovery and
right to a hearing. Let me know if you need anything else in
preparing the draft of McCleskey's briefs. (While the manual
is yours, for your continued use, we've tried not to let
copies fall into the hands of the opposition, so please don't
reproduce it or lend it to Mike Bowers on the weekend). Also
included is. our suggestion for rehearing en banc. in Smith v.
Balkcom which lays out our argument on why Spinkellink does
not foreclose evidence on arbitrariness, racial discrimination,
and prosecution-proneness.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
A A—
ohn Charles Boger
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
New York University
A private university in the public service
School of Law
Faculty of Law
40 Washington Square South, Room 327
New York, N.Y. 10012
Telephone: (212) 598-2638, 2639
Professor Anthony G. Amsterdam
July 9, 1982
John Charles Boger, Esq.
N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund
10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019
Dear Jack:
Thanks a million for sending over the papers comprising
the entire McCleskey (Georgia) federal habeas corpus file. I
appreciate having them, and am sorry to have put you to the
trouble of duplicating them for me.
Keep well.
As ever,
ge ae ——s
Anthony G. Amsterdam
AGA/cc
(Dictated by Mr. Amsterdam
and signed in his absence.)
|
Il Hi |
Franklin$s
Printing / Office Supplies / Copy Service
(404) 523-6931
RIDAY, FEAR
5
El ELF TAN
Compton
killer gets
a reprieve
High court reverses |
his death sentence
~ SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In’
another judicial attack on the so- |
called Briggs jury instruction, the
" state Supreme Court on Thursday
reversed the death sentence of a
man convicted of killing two chil-" =
dren in Compton four years ago.
Though the 6-1 decision up-
held the conviction of Randy Has-
kett, it said the penalty phase of |
his trial should be repeated be--|
|
|
cause Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge James Ideman told the jury
‘ that Haskett could someday be
paroled if he was not sentenced to
death.
THE BRIGGS instruction,
authored by former state Sen. :
John Briggs, R-Fullerton, requires
that a judge remind jurors that a
governor can commute the sen~
tence of life in prison without pa-
role. However, as the court noted
"in another recent case, the judge
is not required to tell jurors that
‘the governor can also. commute
" death sentences.] i Lo pie SEIN
In the other case, the Supreme
Court ruled that the’ Briggs in- !
* struction violated defendants’ due
~ process because it invited specula-
tion of possible action by a gover-
ror and was misleading because it
implied a death sentence could
rot be commuted. That ruling
could affect up to 30 deathrow in-
. mates. dg wo vill
© CONTINUED/ AG, Col. 6
5 sare el ATTA
| 7
2 |
hd
|
wd
5
PR .e Lo Rial 2
Haskett was arrested on Oct.
«23, 1978, and was later convicted
-in the stabbing deaths of Keith *
Bradford, 11, and Cameron Rose,
UARY:49, 1982
+4. He was also convicted of trying.
i sister, Gwendolyn Rose. Charges
-. of rape and robbery were dis-;
missed when the jury failed to. s.-
to kill their mother and his half-:
; + agree on them.
gs i, The jury recommended the,
i. death sentence for Haskett be-
.. cause the case involved a multiple;
* murder, one of several crime cate-
gories for which the death penalty,
; may be imposed. :
The Supreme Court rejected.
. Haskett’s other appeals, including
_ insufficient evidence for first-de-
. - gree murder, inadequate repre-,
tion because the prosecution se-.
&
5
os
in
ww :
‘4
i]
1,
7
- sentation by counsel, illegal. .
search, improper admission of
: photos and denial of equal protec-- 3 3
lected his as a death penalty case. .
"On the Briggs instruction, the
attorney general’s office had ar- +
“ gued any prejudice was cured by :
“ another jury instruction regarding
the parole board’s powers. That :
. instruction, also found to be in
_ error, told the jury the matter of
i parole was not to be considered in
determining punishment. Se
“must assume
~ Ideman said that if the jury
believed life without possibility of
parole was the proper sentence, it -
arole officials *
~ would perform their duty and not".
"parole the defendant unless he
can be safely released irito society. .
+ He told them it would be wrong to ":
.. impose the death penalty because
of doubt that officials would
oR
#1
——
HOME
- EDITION
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
und 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 ¢ (212) 586-8397
October 1, 1981
®
Robert H. Stroup, Esq.
1575 Healey Building
57 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Re: Warren McCleskey (Georgia)
Dear Bob:
Thanks very much for sending me a copy of
your petition for certiorari in McCleskey. You did
an excellent ‘job; if.the Supreme Court's criteria
for granting certiorari bore any relation either to
(i) the merits of the issues; or to (il) the merits
of the petition, we'd have it made. My own view of
the major determinant in the granting of certiorari,
however, leads me to wish you the best of luck.
I appreciate your faithful efforts to keep
me up to date on this. . Take <are and stay well. t
Sincerely,
” le
o
Pd
NE: Charles Boger
JCB: agf
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
egal efense und
June 29, 1981
Robert H. S{iroup, Esqg.
1515 Healey Building
57. Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Re: Warren McCleskey
Dear Bob:
Many thanks for your reminder of June? 10th,
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 ¢ (212) 586-8397
Enclosed in response are copies of the House and McCorquodale
transcript pages covering the testimony of William Bowers,
Glenn Pierce, and Timothy Carr on arbitrariness and racial
discrimination. Sorry these documents have been so long in
coming.
Best Regards. I hope you're having a good Summer.
incerely,
Encs.
JCB: rj
Dictated and sent in Mr. Boger's absence.
ohm Charles Booger
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
JOHN R. MYER
1515 HEALEY BUILDING
57 FORSYTH ST., N.W.
THOMAS A. BOWMAN ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
ROBERT H. STROUP
GARY FLACK
404/522-1934
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
June 10, 1981
John Charles Boger, Esq,
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Re: McCleskey v. Zant
Dear Jack:
This letter is just to remind you that once your copying
machines get freed up, kindly send along to me, as re-
quested earlier , the transcript testimony in McCorquo-
dale of Bowers, Pierce and Carr.
I appreciate your assistance.
Sincerely yours,
E40
Robert H. Stroup
RHS/1
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
egal : und 10 columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 « (212) 586-8397
May 14, 1981
Robert H, Stroup, Esqg.
1515 Healey Bldg.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Re: Warren McCleskey (Georgia)
Dear Bob:
In terms of the McCleskey case, I don't know
whether to be sorry or glad that I have been so pressed
the past six months. I am sorry that I've been no more
assistance to you on the one hand, yet grateful that you
are doing such a good and careful job on the other. Your
application for a certificate of probable cause seems
excellent; they may even grant it !
I look forward to a long talk about the hearing
in January and possible future developments the next time
1 am in Atlanta. Until then, best regards, and say
hello to John.
Sincerely,
di lor
n Charles Boger
JCB: agf
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
David P. Ridgeway, Clerk Offi ce Of Hugh D. Sosebee, Senior Judge
a Martha R. Sims, Dep. Clerk
Forsyth, Ga.
1 S L. Whitmire, Chief Jud
Audrey R. Halley, Dep. Clerk Clerk Superior Court 2m Aili Any hoge
Phone: 404-775-7851 Butts County
R. Alex Crumbley, Judge
P.O. Box 61 McDonough, Ga.
Jackson, Georgia 30233 E. Byron Smith, D.A.
Barnesville, Ga.
April 10, 1981
Mr. Jack Greenberg
Mr. James NN. Nabrit, IIT
Mr. John Charles Boger
Attorneys at Law
10 Columbus Circle
New York, N. ¥Y. 10019
Re: McCleskey v Zant
No. 4909
Gentlemen:
Enclosed herewith 1s a copy of the Order signed by Judge
Crumbley, which was filed in this office today in the above-
stated case.
Yours truly,
A SS
ya 2 Py Ee ) /( ( CA a 7 vd
AUDREY R. BALLE
Deputy Clerk
/arh
encl.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 » (212) 586-8397
February 27, 1981
Robert H. Stroup, Esq.
1515 Healey Bldg.
57 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Re: Warren McCleskey (Georgia)
Dear Bob:
Your brief to the Superior Court of Butts
County is excellent. It is well-written, legally
compelling and characterized by those legal and
scholarly virtues which appear invariably to fall
on deaf ears in Georgia state postconviction proceed-
ings. Nevertheless, your effort leaves me feeling that
McCleskey has a reasonably promising chance to prevail
with some court somewhere down the line.
Thanks for sending me a copy; I regret that the
press of other cases kept me from joining you in
Jackson on January 30, 1981.
Best regards.
Sipcerely,
hy Charles Boger
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
JOHN R. MYER 1515 HEALEY BUILDING
THOMAS A. BOWMAN 57 FORSYTH ST. N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
ROBERT H. STROUP
GARY FLACK
404/522-1934
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
February 24, 1981
Honorable Audrey R. Halley
Deputy Clerk
Butts Superior Court
Post Office Box 61
Jackson, Georgia 30233
Re: Warren McCleskey v. Walter Zant, Warden
Civil Action File No. 4909
Dear Ms. Halley:
Enclosed for filing please find "Petitioner's Post-
Hearing Memorandum" in the above civil action.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Very truly yours,
Tobe. &
Robert H. Stroup
RHS/1
Encls.
cc: Nicholas G. Dumich, Esq.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
egal efense und 0 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y 10019» (212) 586-8397
January 20, 1981
Robert Stroup, Esq.
1515 Healey Bldg.
57 Forsyth Street N.W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Re: Warren McClesky (Georgia)
Dear Bob:
I enjoyed speaking with you today and
hope there prove to be no hitches in getting affidavits
from william Bowers or Glenn Pierce. Enclosed are copies
of the Bowers and Pierce article and the opinion in Hovey.
Best regards. |
t
incerely,
hn Cla rles Boger
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
Pefense und 10 columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 « (212) 586-8397
egal di
July 1,980
Robert Stroup, Esq.
1515 Healey Bldg.
57 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Re: Warren McCleskey (Georgia)
Dear Bob:
I thought you did an excellent job on the
McCleskey petition, and I have decided today to grant
the writ and summarily reverse. (The Supreme Court,
regrettably, has yet to fully acknowledge my authority
in these matters.)
Quite seriously, the issues were very forcefully
presented and made Georgia once again appear legally to be
the odd-man-out. Although the Supreme Court grants certiorari
in only a fraction of in forma pauperis cases, McCleskey has
a far better than average shot. 1 would be grateful if you
would send me a copy of the State's response upon receipt.
Congratulations to you and best regards.
Sincerely,
John Charles Boger
P.S. Enclosed is a copy of People v. Thompson (Crim. 20707,
June 9, 1980), a California Supreme Court case which provides
further ammunition on the McCleskey point, if you wanted to
file a one or two page reply to the State's answering brief.
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
35701... FAIR v. STATE. (627)
HILL, Justice, concurring. |
I concur in the judgment affirming the death penalty on
the basis of the aggravating circumstance discussed in division 3
of the opinion, but not on the basis of Lhe aggravating Circum=-
stance described in division 2, to wit: ‘the illaboersham murder of
which the defendant was later acquitted.
-2]1-
i
]
|
L]
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 ¢ (212) 586-8397
November 8, 1978
Ms. Betty J. Myers
P.O. Box 48
Marietta, Georgia 30060
Dear Mrs. Myers:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning
your brother, Warren McClesky, whom you write is
presently under sentence of death in Georgia. The
NAACP Legal Defense Fund has been involved in the
defense of capital defendants for over a decade, and
I do much of my own legal work in the Stake of Georgia.
Regrettably, our small financial base and limited staff
do not permit us to assist defendants financially. Nor,
at this point, could we become directly involved in
the defense of your brother.
I would, however, be glad to speak with the lawyer
presently representing your brother on appeal (my telephone
number is (212) 586-8397).
You mentioned in your letter that an execution
date of November 27, 1978 has been set. I trust that
someone is presently engaged in obtaining a stay of execu-
tion on your brother's behalf. If that is not the case,
I would be very grateful if you would call me immediately,
collect, so that we could discuss your brother's need for
a stay as soon as possible.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
7
Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.
P. 0. Box 48
Marietta, Georgia 30060
October 29, 1978
C / 7d -~ 4; J os es : a7 ; fee % LK ~~ i724 2,
| m Betty J. Myers, a member of the Zion Baptist Church, located
at 165/Lemon Street in Marietta, Georgia, where the Rev. Robert L.
Johnson is pastor.
My brother Warren McClesky has been convicted of the killing of
Policeman Frank Schlatt, and has been given an execution date of
November 27, 1978.
There were three other men involved in the incident but they have
not been tried. Because of a lack of evidence, I feel his case should
be appealed.
I want to see that he has every opportunity for a fair and just
trial. The expense of a lawyer is beyond what I can afford alone.
Therefore, I am asking for your help financially so that his life may
be saved and that a lawyer may be secured to represent him in getting
a fair trial.
Your prayers and response will be highly appreciated in helping
me to save my brother's life.
Please mail donations to Mrs. Betty J. Myers or Warren McClesky
at P. O. Box 48, Marietta, Georgia 30060, If you have any questions
please call me at 428-7103.
pe
xl ; . A
Betty 4. hort. 4