Northern District of Georgia, No. C81-2434 - Federal Habeas Exhibits Vol. 2 of 2

    JOHN R. MYE R 1515S HEALEY BUILDING 

ROBERT H. STROUP 57 FORSYTH ST., N. W, 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 

GARY FLACK 
  

404/522-1934 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

September 29, 1983 

John Charles Boger, Esq. 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Re: McCleskey v. Zant 
  

Dear Jack: 

I am enclosing copies of the Board of Pardons and Paroles 

Field Operations Manual as introduced into evidence in the 

above-referenced action. I also enclose two exhibits in- 

troduced through Warren McCleskey in the same action. 

  

Very truly yours, 

2C> 
Robert H. Stroup 

RHS/1 

Encls. 

 



  

  
< 

- 

= 
o 
1] 
[3 
o 
> 

- 
« 

a 
«<I 
fe] 
= 
ad 
8 

¢ 

  

        

  

- STATE BOARD OF PARDONS 
AND PAROLES 

800 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E. 
ROOM 610 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308 

 



  

FIELD OPERATIONS MANUAL 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 

SECTION 

i. GENERAL 

1.01 Purpose of Manual I-1 

1.02 Changes to the Manual I-1 

1.03 Agency Organization I-1 

(: 11. Field Office Procedures 

2.01 Office Hours - 71-1 

2.02 Area Supervisors 11-1 

2.03 Chief Parole Officer 11-1 

2.04 Parole Officer II 17.1 

2.03 Parole Officer I 112 

2.086 Institutional Parole Officer II-2 

2.07 Dress Code and Other Requirements 11-2 

2.08 Office Files II-3 

2.09 Personnel Files | 11-3 

2.10 Office Supplies 11-3 ] 

2.11 Emergency Procedures 11-4 

2.12 Telephone Use 11-4 

2213 Office Use T1-4 

2.14 Secretarial Duties : 11-4 

2.15 Records and Case Files 11-6 

2.16 Access to Headquarters Office Case Files 11-7 

2.17 Supplies and Materials 11-8 

2.18 Business Cards and Forms (Printing) 11-8 

no
 .19 + Equipment and Office Furnishings 11-8 

 



  

IY. Field Office Procedures (continued) 

2.20 Delivery of Supplies and Equipment II-9 

2.21 Repairs and Maintenance of Equipment II-9 

2.22 Rental of Office Space | 11-9 

2.23 Monthly Statistical Report II-9 

2.24 Travel & Expense Vouchers 11-10 

2.25 Miscellaneous Expenses | 11-11 

2.26 Subpoenas 11-11 

( 2.27 Board's Relationship with Department 11-12 

~ of Offender Rehabilitation 

2.28 Public Relations : II-12 

2.29 Outstanding Service Award 11-13 

111. Investigation 

3.01 Background Information ITI-1 

3.02 Post Sentence Investigation 111-2 

3.03 Pre-Parole Investigation III-4 

CC 3.04 The Pre-Parole Investigation ITI-9 

3.05 The Parole Program III-13 

3.06 Investigation of Cases for Possible ITI-14 

Exception . 

3.07 Youthful Offender Investigations ITI-14 

3.08 Summary 111-17 

ww.’ Parole Supervision 

4.01 Purpose and Objectives of Parole Supervision Iv-1 

4.02 Field Notebook Sheet Iv-1 

4.03 Notification of Assignment of Parolees IvV-2 

4.04 Notice of Arrival IV- 89
] 

 



  

IV. Parole Supervision (continued) 

The Initial Contact 

Monthly Supervision Report 

Female Offenders 

Initial Notice 

Progress and Conduct Report 

snitiabion and Maintenance of Case File 

Classification of Supervision 

Youthful Offender Supervision 

Employment of Parolees and Youthful Offenders 

Delinquent Reports 

Warrants 

Preliminary Hearings 

Waivers of Final and Preliminary Hearings 

Final Hearings 

Carrying a Handgun 

Arresting a Parolee or Youthful 
Offender Violator 

Transporting a Parolee Violator 

Badges and Identification 

Visits to Places in Georgia 

Transferring a Georgia Parolee to 
Another District 

Transferring a Parolee Within District 

Restoration of Civil and Political Rights 

Death of a Parolee 

Discharge 

Offenders with Probation to Follow Pargle 

Conditional Releases by the State Board 
of Pardons and Paroles 

IV-2 

IV-3 

IV-4 

IV-4 

IV-4 

IV-6 

IV-6 

IV-7 

IV-8 

IV-9 

IvV-12 

IvV-12 

IV-14 

IV-14 

IV-15 

IV-17 

IV-18 

IV-20 

IvV-21 

Iv-21 

Iv-22 

Iv-23 

IV-23 

IV-23 

IV-23 

IV-24 

 



  

IV. Parole Supervision {continuszd) 

4.31 Techniques of Supervision IV-24 

INTERSTATE COMPACT YATTERS FOR PAROLE 
  

4.32 Functions of Interstate Compact IV-25 

4,33 Travel Ouz-of-Stats IV-25 

4.34 Transferring a Georgia Parolee to IV-26 

to Anoths~- State 

4.35 Transferring Out-c’-State Parolees IV-26 

to Another State 

c 

( . 4.36 Transferring Out-c’-State Parolees IvV-27 

: to Anoth== Distric: 

4.37 Returninz Out-of-3:ate Case Papers : Iv-27 

4.38 Closing Cat-of-Stzte Files IV-28 

4.39 Receiving a Case for Supervision from IV-28 

Another =ztate 

4.40 Intersta== Progress and Conduct Reports IV-28 

4.41 Returning Out-of-State Violators Iv-29 

Fs 
¢ v. Perscnnel Matters 

5.01 State Me~it Systen v-1 

5,02 Pre-Empl -yment Hezlth Questionnaire V-1 

5.03 Working Test V-1 

5.04 Sick and Annual L:ave V-1 

5.03 State Hc _1idays V-3 

5.06 Orientat:zon and Training V-4 

5.07 Other Personnel Nztters V-4 

 



  

A. 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 
  

Officer's Rule Book 

Investication and Supervision Cards 

parole Officer's Monthly Statistical Report 

and Instructions for Completion 

Non-Travel Expense Statement 

Travel Expense Statement 

Post-Sentence Investigation Request and Work Sheet 

Report of Investigation 

Post-Sentence Report of Investigation 

Post-Sentence Report of Investigation (Sample Format) 

personal History Statement 

waiver of Parole Consideration 

authorization for Pre-Parole Investigation and 

Release Case Material on File 

Request for personal History Statement 

personal History Statement 

Application for Compact Services 

Pre-Parole Social Report of Investigation 

pre-Parole Social Report of Investigation (Sample Format) 

Social History Worksheet 

Residence Plan 

offer of Emplovment 

Request to Arrange Or Verify Parole Program 

vouthful Offender Legal Investigation Request 

vouthful Offender Post-Release Plan Verification 

Request for Special Interview 

 



  

LIST OF EXHIBITS 
  

S-1 Parole Officer Notebook 

S-2 Notice of Arrival 

S-3 Notice -Monthly Supervision Report 

S-4 Initial Notice 

S-5 Progress and Conduct Report 

S-6 Memorandum Request - Termination of Release 

{ S-7 Delinquent Report - Arrest 

S-8 Delinquent Report - Follow-Up 

S-9 Delinquent Reins - Conviction a 

S-10 Delinquent Report Delinquency-Absconded 

S-11 Delinquent Report Delinquency 

S-12 Waiver of Final Hearing 

'$-13 Waiver of Preliminary Hearing 

S-14 Notice of Hearing 

(° S-15 Transfer Request 

: S-16 Request - Commutation Political and Civil Rights Restoration 

S-17 Citizenship Rights Application Form 

S-18 Travel Permit : 

S-19 Interstate Notice of Arrival 

S-20 Waiver of Extradition (Agreement to Return) 

S-21 Application for Compact Services 

 



  

FORM NUMBER 
  

107 & 255 

CBS 25 

102b 

PF0-4 

PFO-4A 

PFO-4A 

DCOR50-040 

505 

PFO-2 

P1330 

PFO-1 

31 (PI~47) 

PFO (4-3) 

PI-930 

PFO7 

PFO6 

PI1071 

CROSS REFERENCE SHEET 

EXHIBIT 

NARRATIVE 

REFERENCE PAGE 
  

11-6,7 

11-9 

II-11 

11-10 

I11-2 

IITI-4 

IITI-4 

III-4 

ITI-4 

I1I-5 

111-5 

ITT~-5 

III-5 

111-8 

111-10 

J*1-10 

I11-9S 

117-11 

I11-11 

111-13 

I1z-15 

I1z-15 

II1-15 

 



  

CROSS REFERENCE SHEET - CONTINUED 
  

    

NARRATIVE 
FORM NUMBER EXHIBIT REFERENCE PAGE 

PFO-9 s-1 Iv-1 

PI-405 S-2 IV-2 

PFO-11 S-3 IV-3 

PFO-10 per S-4 IV-4 

PFO-12 S-5 Iv-4 

S-6 Iv-7 

C PFO-16 S-7 thru 11 IV-9 

> S-12 IV-14 

S-13 Iv-14 

S-14 IV-14 

PFO-14 S-15 Iv-21 

S-16 IV-23 

S-17 IV-23 

CBS-7 S-18 IV-25 

= CBS-17 S-19 1V-26 

(. PI-1046 S-20 IV-26 

CBS~-12 5-21 Iv-26 

 



  

1. 

05. 

02 

+03 

CHAPTER 1 
  

Purpose of Manual 
  

The purpose of this manual is to provide a comprehensive guide to parole 

officers and parole office secretaries in the performance of their duties. 

Emphasis has been placed on basic "line level" functions. Administrative 

and Management Level functions which are relevant only to agency admini- 

strators have not been stressed in this document. Field personnel are 

urged to refer to the manual when questions as to policy or procedure a- 

rise. 

Changes to the Manual 
  

Field personnel are urged to make suggestions for additions or changes to 

the manual. When such changes occur they will be issued in the form of 

w"Bulletins' labeled either "Administrative," '"Investigative' or ''Super- 

vision." Such bulletins should be considered as an extension of the 

manual and kept on file in each office. Minor "pen and ink" changes 

to the manual may be issued as appropriate. 

Agency Organization 
  

A copy of the agency organization chart is on the following page. 

 



  

State Board of Pardons and Paroles 

December 1, 1978 

  

BOARD MEMBERS 

James T. Morris, Chairman 

J. O, Partain, Jr. 

Mrs, Mamie B. Reese 

Floyd E. Busbee 

Mobley Howell   
    

rr 

  

  
  

|   EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

Donnie A. Lee 

DIRECTOR OF FIELD OPERATIONS 
  

Michael H. Wing 
  

  

  

|   

  

  

  
    

  

  

    

  

      
  

    

  

  

DIRECIOR OF ADMINISTRATION 

Paula S. Powell i 
  

  
  

  

  

        

HEARING EXAMINERS PERSONNEL MANAGER FIELD OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR OF WARRANTS 

CL. Ww. Linthicum, Jr, == A, Pavuk OFF ICEP AULD DISPOSITIONS 

Silas VMoore Allen Richards Charles L. Fincher 

Michael M. Fleming 

R. Leonard Saxon 

Tirothy E. Jones 
| 

SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR 

CASE PROCESSING UNIT PAROLE COMPACT UNIT DISPOSITION UNIT RECORDS UNIT 

Mamie G. Atkinson Bettye I's Young M. Grace Thompson || Madeiyn !c.ullough           
  

  

  

  

  
  

  

P
R
 

  

NOPTHZAST AREA ppm) 

  

Phil} Smith 

    
ATLANTA AREA SUPERVISOR 

Thomas M. Culligan 
  

  

  

  

SOUTIWEST ARFA SUPERVISOR 

Bobby Walker 
  

  

  

SCUTHEAST AREA SUPERVISOR 

Freddie Hersey 
  

  

  1 Sl Tal Tc 1) 

{Jy cistri~ts) 

l, Rore--rreman Hill, Chief 

avid Duke 

Stephen Helton 

Thomas Pirkard 

Larayctte--loe Robinson 

2. Miriotta-=!v1lvin Xing, Chief 

Porky Robinson 

wayne ¥hita 

ttizhael Crouch 

6. Yewnan--Pacdicrd liarris, Chief 
Ann Thompson 

Jerrell Jones 

7. Thomaston-——Jack Weeks, Chief 

Joresboro-~Gorald Echols 

Anber watson 

Jenkinsiurg——pLarl Scith 

Claudia Mouchet 

{ Grian Woodward 
      

  

PAROLE CFFICERS   
{By Districts) 

3. Gainesville-~Phil Smith, Chief 

Joseph Cook 

Roger Nott 

4, Athens--Frank DRiurger, Chief 

Charles Kilpatrick 

Jimmie Andrews 

8. Milledgeville-~Charles Cary, Chief 

Roy Pounds 

William Clark 

9, Gibson--William Wilcher, Chief 

A gusta--L. G. Warr 

Jack Glazner 

Wm. Andrew Hundley 

Ga. Yndustrial Inst,--Denny Chapman 

PARCLE OFFICERS 

(By District) 
5S. Atlanta--Thomas M. Culligan, Chief 

Marsha Bailey 

Judy Franklin 

Thelmon Larkin 
Larry L. Cooper 

Jerry W. Ferrell 

Lynn Wheeler 

John Hoiner 

Deborah J. Duggan 

Cheryl Mallory 
Cindy Williams 

Robert Jones 

Nancy Hayward 

Louis Valente 

  

  
  

David Humphries 

Annegriect Amos 

Mike Henson 

Randy Farr 

James Bralley 

Darell Park 

Celena Messlter 

tawrenceville--Patricia Deavours     

PAROLE OFFICERS 
  

(By Districts) 

12. Macon--Jack Lasseter, Acting Chief 
Frank Sagnibene 

Robert Akin 

Dan Welton 

13, Oglethorpe--R. D. Savage, Chief 

Columbus~-Johnny Short 

John Whaley 

Walter Haddigan 

Teressa Hamrick 

14, Albany--Bill Layton, Chief 
Steve Julian 

Michael Sullivan 
David Phelps 

Ronald Blackstock 

15. Fitzgerald--Bobby Walker, Chief 
Aubrey Wilson 

Moultrie-~Blake Griffin 

Loxry Thompson 

James Vanlandingham   
      

PAROLE OFFICERS 

(By Districts) 

10. Dublin--Hugh Couey, Chief 
Sam Hilbun 

Herschel Hobks 

11, Savannah--R, D. Kent, Chief 
Garnell Pace 

Mike Bowers 

Jimmy Parker 

16. Blackshear--Freadie Hersey, 

James Eaton 

Brunswick--Dick Krauss 

Jesup--Dean Strickland 

Georgia State Prison--billy Murph 

A. M. Gites 

  

C 

    

 



  

2.01 

2.02 

2.03 

2.04 

CHAPTER II 
  

Field Cffice Procedures 
  

Office Hours 
  

Each district and institutional parole office will remain open from 8:15 a.m. 

to 4:45 p.m., with a thirty-minute lunch period, Monday through Friday unless 

the Director of Field Operations specifically authorizes deviation from this 

schedule. In offices having two secretaries, lunch periods should be scheduled 

in a manner which would provide telephone coverage during the lunch period. 

Area Supervisor 
  

The Area Supervisor - in his administrative capacity - is responsible for all 

parole services within his designated area. These services, are under the au- 

spices of the Field Operations Division of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. 

Chief Parole Officer 
  

The Chief Parole Officer is responsible for the administration and supervision 

of all parole field services within his assigned district. He supervises the 

work of parole officers and secretaries, assigns workloads and he is responsi- 

ble for general office procedures outlined in this manual. The Chief Parole 

Officer, in addition, performs investigatery and/or supervisory duties and makes 

sure the workloads are evenly distributed between himself and the other officers 

in his district. 

The Chief Officer is also responsible for insuring that all Board policies and 

procedures are implemented and practiced by personnel under his supervision. He 

will act as district office manager and assure that all office procedures conform 

to instructions issued by the Field Operations Division of the Board. Another 

equally important duty of the Chief Parole Officer is the training and supervis- 

ing of all new personnel assigned to the district. 

The Chief is responsible for public relations activities within his district and 

he is the chief liaison for the Board with probation officers, Superior and State 

Court Judges, district attorneys and other law enforcement personnel within his 

district. Furthermore, it will be his responsibility to plan work schedules with 

all personnel in his district in such a manner that travel and communication ex- 

penses will be kept at an absolute minimum. He will review and determine the 

validity of expense vouchers submitted by personnel under his supervision, and 

he will indicate his approval - should he find the expense a valid one - by sign- 

ing the voucher and forwarding it to the area supervisor. 

‘This officer is also responsible for insuring that the parole officers' monthly 

production report and district production reports are submitted to the area 

supervisor each month. 

Parole Officer I1 
  

The primary duty of the Parole Officer II is to supervise the more difficult 

offenders within the district and to conduct post-sentence and pre-parole in- 
vestigations. In some district offices, the Parole Officer II assumes the ad- 

minstrative responsibilities in the absence of the Chief Parole Officer. 

 



ND
 

  

Parole Officer II - Continued 
  

In a sub—office, the Parole Officer II handles many of the administrative 

duties of a Chief, and he is responsible for the efficient coordination of 

all parole services within the jurisdiction of the sub-office. The Parole 

Officer II may also be required to perform all or part of the duties listed 

below for Parole Officer I. 

2.05 Parole Officer I 
  

The duties of the Parole Officer I are to conduct pre-parole investigations 

and/or provide supervision to an assigned caseload of offenders. These duties 

require all officers to spend a considerable amount of time traveling in the 

field, and , the responsibilities are such that the officers do not work on an 

hourly, daily or weekly basis. The duties are full-time and an officer's work 

schedule is determined by the priorities and requirements which are necessary 

for him to perform those duties properly. 

+o Duties of a Parole Officer I consist of the following: 

> A. Provide supervision to an assigned caseload of parolees 

and youthful offenders. 

B. Maintain regular contact with the offenders through sched- 

uled interviews at the parole office and unscheduled visits 

to the offender's home and place of business. 

C. Report any violations of the conditions of release to the 

Parole Board and make recommendations as to appropriate 

action needed as a result of the violations. 

D. Submit progress and conduct reports, transfer requests, and 

other reports relating to the supervision of an offender 

caseload. 
E. Interview inmates and conduct pre-parole investigations on 

inmates eligible for parole of youthful offender conditional 

release. The investigative process includes interviewing 

the inmate's family members, the inmate's previous employers, 

( court officials, and law enforcement officials. 

2.06 Institutional Parole Officer 
  

The primary duty of the Institutional Parole Officer is to interview inmates 
of the institution and prepare personal history statements on them. The In- 
stitutional Parole Officer must also act as a liaison representative of the 
Board in providing general information to the inmate population with reference 
to parole policies, regulations, and procedures. He must deal on an individual 
basis with the various problems of inmates in such a way as to minimize, as 
much as possible, inmates' direct correspondence with the Board. He shall be 
responsible for public relations activities, and he must act as a representative 
of the Board in handling psychiatric examinations, vocational rehabilitation and 

. any other related services available at the institution. Additionally, the 

. Institutional Parole Officer shall be responsible for the proper maintenance 
and operation of his office at the institution, insuring that all office pro- 
cedures conform with those instructions issued by the Board and the Administrative 

Staff. His office shall be kept open at least eight hours per day, five days per 

week. 

No
 

.07 Dress Code and Other Requirements 
  

Due to the nature of their job, Parole Officers are in constant contact with the 

local courts, law enforcement, and other state and local governmental agencies. 

 



  

CHAPTER III 
  

Investigation 
  

3.01 Background Information 

1. The investigation referred to in this Chapter is the information- 

gathering process prior to parole consdderation. The major part 

of this report basically answers the questions, "Who is the person?" 

The analytic evaluation phase deals with more complex questions such 

as, "What kind of person is he?"; "What factors contributed to his 

current difficulties?"; and perhaps most importantly, "Within the 

framework of the law, what is the best possible disposition which can 

be made of the case to insure that the dual goals of protection of 

society and rehabilitation of the offender are fulfilled?" 

  

2. Under the 1943 Act, Code Section 77-512, the Board is charged with 

¥ the responsibility of obtaining information respecting persons subject 

( to relief by the Board. "It shall be the duty of the Board to obtain 

. and place in its permanent records as complete information as may be 

practically available on every person who may become subject to any relief 

which may be within the power of the Board to grant. Such information 

shall be obtained as soon as possible after imposition of the sentence 

and shall include: 

A. A complete statement of the crime for which such person is sentenced, 

the circumstances of such crime, and the nature of such person's sentence. 

B. The Court in which such person was sentenced. 

C. The term of his sentence. 

D. The name of the presiding judge, the prosecuting officers, the 

investigating officers and the attorney for the persons convicted. 

Names of all co-defendants, and sentences imposed upon them. 

. Copy of pre-sentence investigation and any previous court record. 

. Fingerprint record. 

A copy of all probation reports available. 

( . Any social, physical, mental or criminal record of such person.” 

a 3. "The Board shall immediately examine such records and any other records 

obtained and make such other investigations as they may deem necessary." 

Thus we find the authority set out by law for making a pre-parole investigatior 

The criminal justice process begins when a person is arrested and charged 

with committing a crime. After the. commission of a crime, the police 

must make an initial investigation. After the investigation, the process 

of arrest follows; this includes booking initial appearance, preliminary 

hearing, indictments, arraignment, trial and sentencing. 

4. After the sentencing phase, the Clerk of Superior Court notifies the 

State Department of Offender Rehabilitation of the subject's conviction 

by sending to them a certified copy of the sentence, a copy of the 

indictments, and an Affadavit of Custodian which 1s prepared by the County 

Jail. The State Department of Offender Rehabilitation in turn notifies 

the State Board of Pardons and Paroles that the subject is now in their 

custody and informs the Board of the offense for which he was convicted, 

the date of his conviction and the length of his sentence. 

=
O
 

m
o
 

 



  

3.02 

- 3 re 

Post Sentence Investigation 
  

The post-sentence investigation is generally regarded by the Board as 

the most important part of the pre-parole investigation. In this report, 

the Parole Officer is to advise the Board of the technical data concerning 

the conviction, the offender's prior record in the district, and the circumstances 

of the crime for which the offender was convicted. The importance of this 

report cannot be over-emphasized; and, where the offender has been convicted 

of crimes against the person, it is imperative that the Officer extract the 

exact circumstances surrounding the offense. Any aggravating or mitigating 

circumstances must be included in the report. The point to keep in mind is 

that the Board must have a clear picture of the crime as it is incumbent 

on the Board to make the final disposition on almost all cases sentenced by 

the Court. Although the Board considers many factors prior to rendering their 

decision on a case, information contained in the post-sentence investigation 

can be their sole reason for denying clemency. The procedure for conducting 

the post-sentence investigation is as follows: 

1. The initial post-sentence request is forwarded by the Records Unit to the 

Parole Officer in the district where the subject was convicted. This 

request is known as a Post-Sentence Investigation Request and Work Sheet, 

Form #102b (Exhibit I-1). This form includes the name under which the 

subject was convicted, his assigned inmate number, which is given to him 

by the Department of Offender Rehabilitation, his consideration date, his 

aliases if any, his age, race and sex. 

2. The post-sentence request also includes the offense for which the inmate 

is convicted, the date of conviction, the indictment number, the Court in 

which he was convicted, and the sentence that he received. This informs 

the investigator of the County in his district in which he must proceed 

to investigate the case. The investigator will proceed to this County and 

go to the Clerk of Court's Office to review the criminal docket, and obtain 

the indictment number (if not furnished in the request). Whether or not the 

offender was tried, entered a plea of guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere, 

the offense for which he was convicted and the sentence he received should 

be shown. The investigator should also list the names of the judge, district 

attorney, defense attorney and co-defendants, if any, and the sentences the 

co-defendants received. 

3. While at the Clerk of Court's Office, the investigator should check the 

criminal docket for previous convictions, and should any be found, he should 

list the offense(s), the date of conviction, the court and the sentence. He 

should trace this record back as far as the subject's fifteenth birthday. 

4. After reviewing the original sentence signed by the judge and found in the 

Clerk of Court's Office, the investigator should look for any discrepancy 

between what is stated on post-sentence investigation request and what is 

actually contained in the sentencing record. If there is a discrepancy, he 

must immediately notify the Parole Board post-sentence clerk, furnishing 

her/him a copy of the-original sentence and pointing out che discrepancy. The 

investigator might even find that the subject has current sentences which were 

not reported to her/him in the request received from the headquarter's office. 

These should be included in the report. 
  

 



  

10. 

-3i- 

Should the Officer determine that the subject was arrested and 

indicted for other crimes during the same term of Court and the cases 

were dropped or nol prossed on a motion from the D.A., the Docket number, 

a statement as to why the case was nol prossed, and the circumstances of 

the offense should be included in post-sentences. Strong cases against 

an offender are frequently nol prossed by D.A.s when the offender agrees 

to enter pleas to the most serious charges through "plea-bargaining". 

Refer to sample copy of post-sentence contained in exhibits. 

Jail time - A copy of the Affadavit of Custodian, which is prepared by 

the County Jailer, will be attached to the warrant indictment and 

sentence order. . ‘This form contains the number of days the inmate was 

in custody prior to date sentence was imposed. The Parole Officer should 

compare this information with the date the request for post-sentence reveals 

the sentence was computed from. If the inmate was on bond, on escape, or 

in a mental institution during part of this time, state these dates. If 

arrested and held in jail in another state in connection with the present 

offense, advise of the date in custody either in the other state or in 

Georgia. (If the inmate was arrested in another state on another charge, 

he will not receive credit on his Georgia case until the date the other state 

released him to our detainer.) 
To obtain information concerning other previous offenses and outstanding 

detainers, the investigator should check the local police department and 

sheriff's office. 
Detainers - An outstanding detainer should be considered a warrant that 

is presently being held by the sheriff charging the subject with another 

offense, or an indictment that is pending in the Clerk of Court's Office. 
Juvenile Record - The investigator should contact the local juvenile authorities 

or court service workers in his district and ascertain if the subject has a 

juvenile record and if so, it should be included. 
Circumstances of the Offense - This should be obtained in narrative form; 

it should be taken from the indictment, the District Attorney's Office, 
the arresting officers, witnesses, and victim. A word picture, telling what 
happened, when, where,why, how and to whom, should be prepared. Other 

information to provide includes the date of arrest and dates in jail from 

time of arrest to date of conviction on present offense. If the subject is 

on bond, on escape or in a mental institution during part of this time, this 

should also be shown by giving appropriate dates. If offender was arrested 

and held in jail in another state in connection with this offense, the date 

in custody, either in the other state or in Georgia, should be given. If he 

was arrested on other charges, the date he was released on present ~harge must 

be shown. 
In the last paragraph, advise where and/or from whom information was 

received regarding circumstances. Example: The above information was obtained 

from Detective John Smith, Homicide Division, Columbus Police Department, 
  

  

and from subject's file at the Columbus Police Departmant. 

 



  

3.03 

- yi 

If the post-sentence is performed separately from the social investigation, 

any comments from judges, district attorneys or law enforcement officials 

should be placed in the post-sentence report. These comments should be 

placed in a separate section at the end - f the post-sentence and should be 

labeled "Comments of Local Officials.” [his area is of particular interest 

to the Board, and Parole Officers should be careful to contact any officials 

who might wish to comment. This is especially important when the offender 

has committed serious crimes such as robbery, rape or murder. 

The Parole Officer should be as thorough as possible when conducting post- 

sentences on persons who have received life sentences, or sentences in 

excess of fifteen years. In cases where the arrest reports are incomplete 

the circumstances of the offense should be obtained as thoroughly as possible 

and the Parole Officer should review the transcript of the trial if available 

for detailed information. A personal interview with the arresting or investigatin 

officer is almost always a valuable source of information as the officer 

may recall important details and facts which were not revealed in the arrest 

report. Photographs of victims of assault and murder should be obtained when 

possible and attached to post-sentence. When photographs are obtained, they 

should be placed in a separate envelope and marked "Photographs of Victim." 

The Parole Officer should also make reference to the presence of the photo- 

graphs in the body of the post-sentence report. 

Upon completing the post-sentence investigation, the information should be 

dictated to a secretary as outlined on Form Number PFO-4 (Exhibit Tw20). 

She is to type an original and two copies; the original and one copy should 

be forwarded to the headquarter's office and one copy should be placed in 

investigator's file. This copy, with the worksheet attached, should be filed 

using the procedures outlined in the filing section of this manual. (See Exhibits 

1-3 and I-4 for sample format and mocl: post-sentence investication.) 

Pre-Parole Investigation 
  

1. The pre-parole investigation request will arrive in three different 

forms: 

a. Personal History Statement and Warden's Evaluation (Parole Review Summary) 

b. Pre-Parole 

c¢. The Parole Program 

2. The Personal History Statement: The investigator will receive a request 

on DCOR50-040 (7/76) (Exhibit I-5) approximately four months prior to the 

inmate's parole eligibility month. This form tells the month in which the 

subject is eligible, his serial number, his name as he was convicted, his race 

and sex, where he is serving and the reports needed. 

When a PHS is required, arrangements should be made to interview the inmate. 

The purpose of the interview should be explained and the importance of the 

correctness of addresses should be stressed. If the inmate at anytime during 

the interview states that he does not wish to be considered for parole, his 

reason should be determined. An investigator should never just accept a walver 

" because it will save him time and work. If the subject's reason is that there 

is a detainer against him, he should be informed that there are procedures 

available through the Department of Of fender Rehabilitation whereby he may 

demand trial on the detainer if it is in Georgia. Also, he should be informed 

that the detainer does not prevent him from being considered for Conditional 

Transfer (parole to the detainer). If he says he just wishes to make his 

time in prison, it should be determined that he is not under the false impression 

that Earned Time does not apply while on parole. Parolees receive the same 

Earned Time they wauld if still in prison and will be discharged at the same time 

 



EXHIBIT I-1 

  

10: Mr. 
; District 

  

  

(Date) 

POST-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REQUEST 

AND 

WORK SHEET 
C-.nsideration 

Name No. Date 
  

  
  

Alias dn Age Race Sex 
  

  
  

Date of 

Offense Conviction Court Sentence 

() 

(2) 

  

  

  

PRESENT OFFENSE(S): 

Indictment No. Plea or Trial Judge District Attorney Defense Attorney 

(1)   

(2)   

(3)   

PREVIOUS OFFENSES AND DETAINERS: 

Date of 

Offense Conviction Court Sentence 

  

  

    

  

Juvenile Record:   

Detainers:   

Use the following space to continue any of the above items and to record any co-defendents on pre- 

sent offenses and their sentences. Record any current state and county sentences found in court records 

but not reported to you by headquarters office or any discrepancies between court records and information 

furnished by headquarters office. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Pi-329 (OVER) Form No. 1020 

(3/20/70) 

 



Record name and address of persons you intend to interview: 

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

CIRCUMSTANCES: Make notes while reviewing records and interviewing persons. Always answer the 

questions who, what, where, when, what led to arrest, date of arrest, any time on bond, escape, mental 

institution, etc., between arrest and sentencing, and source of information. Answer the following when known 

A ov #1 n . : . ; - a . 6 “ 

and applicchle to the type offense committed: extent of monetary loss or injury, motive, how crime was 

perpetrated, were valuables recovered or restitution made, was violence involved, did subject and victim 

know each other, was subject the leader or 2 follower, was subject drinking or on drugs or narcotics. 

Include any other information you think will be valuable to the Board. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

      

  

2 

    

  

  

  

  

  
  

  
  

  

  

  

 



STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES EXHIBIT 1-2 
Atlanta, Georgia 

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 

  

( ) Post-Sentence 

( ) Pre-Parole Social 

  

  

  

    
  

( ) Other Consideration Date 

NAME: NUMBER: COUNTY : 

AGE 3 

AL1A51 DOB: CONVICTION 

RACE: DATE : 

INDICTMENT NO: SENTENCE: 

OFFENSE: 

  
  

CONFIDENTIAL STATE SECRET WHEN COMPLETED 

PFO 4-A (For official use only) 

 



- Exhibit I-3 

STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES 
Atlanta, Georgia 

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 

  

( x) Post-Sentence 

( ) Pre-Parole Social 
Consideration Date April, 1980 
  

  

  

    
  

  
  

( ) Other 

NAME: Robert Carpenter NUMBER: EF-999,999 COUNTY: Wayne 

ALIAS: AGE: CONVICTION "Bob" 
26 

DOB: DATE: 9-30-79 

a RACE: w/m 

INDICTMENT NO: 79-48 SENTENCE: 5 years, serve 2, bal. 

prob. 

OFFENSE: puto Theft 

§ LEGAL HISTORY: FBI #: 462-322-B SID #: 114-80-62-2 

A. PREVIOUS OFFENSES: 
  

1. Make special effort to obtain age at first conviction. Make special effort 

to list all juvenile offenses that would be an offense if committed by an 

adult and give date and disposition. Check and list all offenses found in 

City Recorder's Courts, State Courts or Superior Courts. Also list any 

out of state convictions reported by police or sheriff records. Attach 

FBI record if available. 3 

2. Give thorough report of Probation Revocations and attach copies of 

revocation documents if available. 

3. Mention any drug related convictions which included the use of heroin, 

codein, or morphine. 

4. List any outstanding detainers, hold orders, or pending indictments. 

B, PRESENT OFFENSE: 
  

{ 1. Mention if original indictment was for an offense other than offense 
> convicted for. 

2. Name of court, date, indictment number. 

3. Plea or Trial; sentence received 

4. Judge, District Attorney, Defense Attorney. 

5. List any discrepancies between information given on Post-Sentence request 
and actual court records. 

6. Reporting of Revoked Probation (as described in Investigative Bulletin No. 2). 

7. Co-defendants and sentence received; give disposition even if juvenile or 

* dismissed; Judge, District Attorney, Defense Attorney. 

C. CIRCUMSTANCES:   

1. Narrative form - listing injured party, extent of injury, dollar value of 
damage to person or property or value of stolen property... Was restitution 

made. List other offenses subject involved in but not convicted of. Give 

word picture of crime: how, what, when, where, and whom. Get details from 

investigating officers, witnesses, and even the victim in most cases. What 

led to arrest? 

2. Last paragraph should state from where and whom the given information was 
obtained. 

CONFIDENTIAL STATE SECRET WHEN COMPLETED 
(For official use only) PFO 4-A 

 



D, COMMENTS OF LOUAL OFFICIALS: 

  

  

1. Parole officer should contact any official who may wist to comment, 2 

especially on crimes such as Armed Robbery, Rape and Murder. 

2. Photographs of victims of assault and murder should be obtained when 

possible and attached to the Post-Sentence Investigation, 

3. Review investigation making sure Items 1-6 of Investigative Check List 

are answered. 

   



EXHIBIT 1-4 
STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES 

Atlanta, Georgia 

  

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 

(SAMPLE FORMAT) 

(xx) Post-Sentence 

( ) Pre-Parole Social 
Consideration Date __April, 1980   

  

  

    
  

  
  

( ) Other 

NAME: James C. O'Berry NUMBER: gr-654,321 | COUNTY: Wayne 

ALIAS: james Carl O'Berry AGE: 26 CONVICTION 
Z DOB: DATE: 9/30/78 

mo RACE: w/m 

INDICTMENT NO: g7-78 SENTENCE: &4years, serve l year, 

bal. prob; 

OFFENSE: Burglary (rem. rev. 7/14/79) 

(: LEGAL HISTORY: FBI #: 567-333-A SID #: 112-90-26-B 

Wayne County Juvenile Court; 
  

3/22/67 (age 14) - Breaking & Entering - 12 months probation 

4/30/68 - Theft by Taking — 12 months probation continued 

10/13/68 - Unruly - Continued on probation 

8/10/69 - Extortion & Fiphting — Continued on probation 

10/14/69 - Theft by Taking - YDC, Waycross - 6 months 

Jesup City Recorder's Court: 
  

2/25/71 - Poss. of Marijuana (less than 1 0z.) — $1,000.00 or 6 months (served time) 

7/6/72 - Disorderly Conduct - $150.00 C.B.F. 

¢ 5/11/73 - Disorderly Conduct & Resisting Arrest - $150.00 C.B.F. 

Long State Court: 
  

1/19/74 - Driving without License - $30.00 C.B.F. 

5/23/74 - DUI & Speeding — 12 months (2 cts. cc) 

Wayne Superior Court: 
  

6/14/74 - Burglary 3 years 

2/11/76 - VGCSA (Poss. of Heroin) —- 3 years 

Detainer in Fulton County, Georgia for the offense of Burglary committed on May 10,1978. 

PRESENT OFFENSE: 
  

Wayne Superior Court #67-78: On 10/4/78 subject entered a plea to Burglary and was 

sentenced to 4 years, serve 1, balance probated. Presiding Judge-R.L. Scoggin; 

District Attorney - Glenn Thomas, Jr.; Defense Attorney =- J.A. Leaphart. 

On 7/14/79, the balance of the above probation was revoked by Judge Scoggin due to 

subject's arrest for Burglary in Atlanta, Ga., on May 10, 1979. A detainer has 

been filed against the subject in Fulton Co. for this offense. (Copy of revocation 

order attached). 

Co-Defendants: 
  

Donald Brown - 9/30/78 - Burglary - 4yrs., serve 1 yr., balance probated. Judge 

Scoggin; D.A. Thomas; Defense Attorney Leaphart. 

CONFIDENTIAL STATE SECRET WHEN COMPLETED 

(For official use only) PFO 4-A 

 



  

CIRCUMSTANCES: 
  

The Jesup City Police Department received a phone call from an informant at 

approximately 12:50 A.M. on July &4, 1978 stacing that they had seen someone inside 

the Town & Country Pharmacy which is located at 129 W. Cherry Street, Jesup, Georgia. 

At approximately 1:00 A.M. of July 4, 1978 the subject and co-defendant were 

arrested inside of the Town & Country Pharmacy. In the subject's and co-defendant's 

possession was a paper bag filled with codein, morphine, amphetamines and 

barbiturates. 

The {investigating officer in this case, Detective Jim Smith of the Jesup City Pollce 

Department, stated that the subject and co-defendant were high on drugs at the time 

of the offense. Detective Smith stated that both the subject and co-defendant 

admitted to him that they were heroin addicts and were stealing the drugs to support 

their habit. All stolen merchandise was recovered. 

The above information was obtained by way of personal interview with the investigating 

officer in this case, Detective Jim Smith of the Jesup City Police Department, and 

from incident and arrest reports of file with the Jesup City Police Department. 

Subject was arrested on 5/10/79, by the Atlanta City Police Dept. during the process 

of burglarizing Rich's Dept. Store located at 1014 Central Ave., Atlanta, Ga. The 

subject had broken a front plate glass thereby setting off a burglar alarm. As {. 

previously mentioned, subject's probation was subsequently revoked due to this 

arrest and charges are pending in Fulton Co. 

( 

COMMENTS OF LOCAL OFFICIALS: 
  

Sheriff Riley Reddish of Wayne County was contacted and he stated that due to the 

subject's extensi.2 prior record and drug addition, he could not recommend parole 

but instead should be a prime prospect for a drug rehabilitaticn program. 

Respectfully submitted: 

F. Dezan Strickland 

hief Parole Officer 

District 1H 

November 29, 1979 

FDS:rl 

 



  

In the United States District Court 

Northern District of Georgia 

Atlanta Division Fe 

WARREN McCLESKY, 

Petitioner 

- Against - CIVIL ACTION 

WALTER D. ZANT, Superintendent, 

Georgia Diagnostic & 

Classification Center, 

NO. C81-2434A 

    

follows. On or about August 18, 1983, the Court in this proceeding 

delivered to George Woodworth and me a specification of variables from 

the Charging and Sentencing Study styled the "Lawyers' Model," a copy of 

which is attached hereto as Appendix A. The Lawyers' Model includes 

three sets of variables -- aggravating factors (items 1-4), mitigating 

factors (item 5), and strength of the evidence measures (item 6). The 

Lawyers' Model specified that a case be included in the analysis if it 

(a) posses a specified combination of the aggravating factors in 

items 1-4, and (b) showed the strength of measured by the 

variables in item 6; the instructions further stated that cases with the 

mitigating factors in item 5 were to be excluded from the analysis. 

   



9/15/83 

  

An alternative method for estimating racial effects while 

Lawyers' Model is to enter them into a multiple regression analysis as 

independent variables. art IT of this affidavit presents the results 

of four analyses using this approach. 

Finally, the Lawyers' Model requested that we account for the 

status of defense counsel in the cases, specifically whether the 

defendant's counsel was (a) a private attorney appointed by the court, 

or (b) either a privately retained attorney or a court appointed 

attorney with an institutional affiliation (e.g., a public defender). 

s the results of the analyses 

- ] oe : - [ = I. Analyses Using Cases Selected 
~ 1 ~~] Lawyers' Model. 

a. The Samples 

The first three variables 

were already included in the file o 

1 N 
sendy. However, to i te tics 

specified in items 4-6, it was necessary to create a series of new 

variables. The coding for these variables, (VA4A-V6D) , whose names 

correspond to the paragraphs in the Lawyers' Model at Appendix A, is 

listed in Appendix B of this Affidavit. 

  

Item 1 (INDICT); Item 2 (DEFAGE); Item 3 (DEATHELG). 1 

 



  

-3m 9/15/83 

The variables specified in the Lawyers' Model for selecting 

cases sharply limited the cases available for analysis, specifically, 

they identified only 31 of the 1066 cases in the sample and only 15 of 

the 128 death sentence cases. In order to obtain samples of sufficient 

size both to conduct multiple regression analyses and to obtain a 

substantial representation of death sentence cases, we relaxed the 

requirements of the Lawyers' Model in three successive stages with the 

results presented in Table 1. For Example, row 2 of Table 1 indicates 

(Table 1 goes here) 

. that when the limitations of the original Lawyers' Model were relaxed 

  

cases from the 

analvsis he sat 

+. The fourth and largest 

 



2a. 9/15/83 

  

  

Table 1 

Ra B c D 
Sample Number a Total Samp S Cases in the Universe Proportion and 

Characteristics— of Cases— Represgated by the Number of Death 

Sample— with the Sentence Cases 

Proportion of Universe 

Represented 

1. Original Lawyers’ 31 46 (.02) e12:(15/128) 

Model. 

2. Lawyers' Model wit 66 104 (.05) .21 (27/104) 

a Relaxation of the 

Exclusions Based on 

the Presense of 

Mitigating Factors. 

3. Lawyers' Model with 238 441 {.18) .51 (65/128) 

No Exclusion of 

Cases Because of 

Mitigating Factors. 

4. Lawyers' Model with 354 647 (.26) .76 {97/128) 

  

 



-5- 9/15/83 

  

For each sample, we calculated death sentencing rates overall 

and among the four groups of cases produced by the "Defendant/victim 

racial combination" variable. The results were as follows: 

  

  

Table 2 

Death Sentencing Rates 

A 2 2 LY z Ld 
Sample Number Average— Black Def. White Def. Black Def. White Def. 

Rate White Vic. White Vic. Black Vic. Black Vic. 

1 .33 (15/46) .55 (13/24) .13 (2/15) .0 (0/7) 9 HE 

2 .26 (27/104) .54 (22/41) «17 (5/31) .0 (0/32) idenBf 

3 .15 (65/441) «42 27/65) «17 (28/170) .04 (8/192) .07 (1/14) 

4 .15 (97/647) .35 (34/98) «18 (50/271) +05 (12/262) .06 (1/16)   
These analyses indicate that as the samples of cases are expanded beyond 

the original Lawyers' Model, the average death sentencing rate declines, 

but the race of victim and race of defendant effects persist in each 

analysis. 

  

1/ The denominators are weighted figures. 

a/ No cases in this category. 

 



ds 9/15/83 

  

An analysis of the prosecutorial decision to seek a death 

sentence after a murder conviction was obtained at trial shows the same 

  

  

pattern. The results are as follows: 

Table 3 

Rates at Which Prosecutors Seek a Death 

Sentence After a Guilt Trial 

A B < D E ¥ 
Sample Number Average— | Black Def. White Def. Black Def. White Def. 

Rate | White Vic. White Vic. Black Vic. Black Vic. 

1 «70.421/30) | 1.0 (15/15) .61 (6/10) .0 (0/5) pnt, 

2 .56 (38/68) «87 (27/31) +57 (10/18) .05 (1/19) Sous 

3 .47 (102/214) .78 (38/49) .46 (46/101) :25 (15760) «40 (2/5) 

4 .47 (161/345) «78 (58/75) .44 (79/177) «25 (22/89) .44 (2/5)   
  

1l/ The denominators are weighted figures. 

a/ No cases in this category. 

In contrast, an analysis of death sentencing rates at penalty trial 

shows substantially weaker race of victim and race of defendant effects. 

Those results were as follows: 

Table 4 

Death Sentencing Rates at a Penalty Trial 
  

  

A BE c D E F 
Sample Number Average Black Def. White Def. Black Def. White Def. 

Rate White Vic. White Vic. Black Vic. Black Vic. 

a/ a/ 
1 «68 (15/22) .81 (13/16) «331(2/6) a om ee! 

2 .68 (27/40) «79: (22/28) 51 (5/10) 0 (0/2) ieanalf 

3 B61 {65/107} .69 (27/39) .57 (28/49) .50 (8/16) «B50: {1/2) 

4 .57 (97/169) .58 (34/59) .59 (50/84) «250 (12/24) 5061/2) 

  

a/ No cases in this category. 

  

 



  

-7- 9/15/83 

c. Multiple Regression Analysis 

We next conducted weighted least squares multiple regression 

analyses which controlled for the 39 background variables in Schedule 4 

of the Technical Appendix (Petitioner's Exhibit DB 96A). Analyses were 

conducted for Samples 3 and 4 with 238 and 354 cases respectively. For 

each analysis, we first controlled simlutaneously for the 39 background 

variables and then in a second analysis, for the background variables 

from the list of 39 that showed a statistically significant relationship 

with the outcome variable at the .10 level. The results are presented 

in Table 5 and Appendix C presents the complete regression results from 
dh 3 FF. - 

 



—8 9/15/83 

  

Table 5 

  

Weighted Least Squares Regression Coefficients for Race of Victim 
And Race of Defendant Controlling for 39 Non-Racial Background Variables 
  

A. B. C. 
Outcome Variable & Race of Victim Regression Race of Defendant Regression 
Background Variables Coefficients (with level of Coefficients (with level 
Simultaneously Statistical Significance) of Statistical Significance) 
Controlled for in 

the Analysis 

      

J. Death Sentence 

    

Given a Murder Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 3 Sample 4 
Indictment (n=238) (n=354) (n=238) (n=354) 
IDPMURIDRY, if 00 Ray os To Ne aga Sand Re ag 

A. 39 Non-Racial «13 xl .04 01 
Background Variables (.05) (.05) (.49) (.90) 

B. 13/16 Statistically ol7 «15 .09 .05 
Significant Packs, (.01) (.01) {.10) {.29) 
ground Variables— 

II. Prosecutor Seeks A 

Penalty Trial After A 

Guilt Trial Murder 

Conviction (PSEEKNGP) 

A. 39 Non-Racial .24 «23 .07 .06 
Background Variables (.04) {.02) (.50) (.49) 

B. 11/9 Statistically «23 2b D3 0 
Significant Backs {.02) (.01) {.75) {+27) 

ar a af 
ground Variables— 

III. Jury Death Sentencing 

Decision At Penalty 

Trial (DEATHSNT) 

A. 39 Non-Racial 13 1} «03 -.08 
Background Variables (.40) (.34) (.80) {+39} 

B. 10 Statistically :13 07 01 -.08 
Significant {.237) {.45) (.92) (.28) 
Background Variables 

1/ The Sample 3 analysis included 13 background variables while the Sample 4 
analysis included 16 variables. 

2/ The Sample 3 analysis included 11 background variables while the Sample 4 
analysis included 9 variables. 

 



  

9/15/83 

We also conducted weighted logistic regression analyses using 

the cases in Sample 4 (n=354). The racial coefficients estimated in two 

analyses with "Death Sentence Given a Murder Indictment" as the 

dependent variable were as follows: 

Table 6 
  

Race of Victim 
  

Race of Defendant 
  

  

Death Odds Regression Death Odds Regression 

Multiplier Coefficient Multiplier Coefficient 

(with level (with level 

of Statistical of Statistical 

Significance) Significance) 

Background Variables 

Simultaneously 

Controlled For =... 

a) 39 variables in 4.0 1.39 «57 -.56 
Schedule 4 of {.03) £15) 

Petitioner's Exhibit 

DB 96A 

b) 19 of the 39 variables 5.5 1.87 wil -.39 
in a) above with a 001) (.40) 
statistically signifi- 

cant relationship 

(.10 level) with the 

dependent variable 

    

Finally we used the 354 cases in Sample 4 to produce two 

figures which contrast the rise in death sentencing rates in white and 

black victim cases among similarly situated cases as the aggravation 

level of the cases increases. For this purpose, the aggravation level 

of each case was estimated from the results of a weighted least square 

regression which controlled for the 39 non-racial background variables 

included in Schedule 4 of Petitioner's Exhibit DB 96A. The results are 

presented in figures 1 and 2. They provide additional support for the 

hypothesis that the State of Georgia operates a dual system for 

(Figures 1 & 2 go here) 

processing homicide cases in which white victi cases are in fact 

 



Figure 1 Midrange second order model for 354 death elibible cases. 
(Black Defendants) 

  

    

  

  

    

s nw 2 
EA 
Hi le 4 
Ry 

SES 
> 0 
~ SN 

© wn 
~~ +] E> 
Mm — Q 

“0 
V 

a 100 1 > ro (9) 
+d 

on ow EY) o 
c 
Q = + | wv ] J 

J
f
 

  

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 

of
 

a 
De
at
 

-— 25 percentage point 

race of victim 
yo . x hb J ears disparity at McClesky's Black victim cases Es oi ph y ‘ %£ level of aggravation 

at McClesky's level i 

 ] Ea A a { cide 

60 80 100 

NOTES: Level of aggravation is the linear WLS Model leav ing out the racial 
effects. The second order model includes race of victim, race of 
defendant, level of aggravation, all two-way inter Factions and the 
square of the level of aggravation. The model includes white 
defendants, but they are not graphed here. 

 



  

- 

Figure 2 Midrange second order model for 354 death elibible cases. 
(White Defendants) 

    
W
h
i
t
e
 

V
i
c
t
i
m
s
 

+ 
2 

St
d.

 

100 J 

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 

of
 

a 
D
e
a
t
h
 

S
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
 

~J
 

9]
 

  
D
e
v
.
 

 



-10- 9/15/83 

  

considered more aggravated than similarly situated black victim cases. 

Figures 1 also indicates that among cases with an aggravation level 

comparable to Warren McClesky, there is a 25 percentage point race of 

victim disparity. 

The results of the analysis shown in the first section of this 

affidavit are consistent with the results presented in the hearing. 

There are persistent race of victim effects and when the analysis 

focuses on the more aggravated cases, where there is a substantial risk 

of a death sentence, those effects increase substantially. 

ing Variables Created 

The 18 variables created to select cases for the analyses 

reported in Part I provide an alternative means of controlling for the 

non-racial background case characteristics identified as important in 

1.2 nalyses while controlling simultaneously for these 18 non-racial 

the variables from the Lawyers' Model and the 39 variables which we — 
QL. 

 



-11- 9/15/83 

  

  

  
  

Table 7 

Race of Victim Race of Defendant 

Coefficient (with Coefficient (with 

Adjusted level of Statistical level of Statistical 

R2 Significance Significance 

Background Variables 

Simultaneously 

Controlled For 

b 1. 18 variables in 31 10% 06 
the Lawyers’ (.04) {.27) 
Model 

2. 18 variables in 43 11 .05 
the Lawyers’ (.04) (.34) 
Model and the 39 

variables in 

Schedule 4 of 

Petitioner's 

Exhibit DR 926A 

3. 39 variables in . 3S +31 01 
Exhibit DB 96A {.05) (.90) 

a/ The logistic regression coefficient and death odds multiplier for race of victim 
estimated in a separate analysis were 1.45 and 4.3 respectively (significant at 
the .003 level). 

These data show the same pattern of racial effects observed in our 

[ITI. Racial Effects Estimated After Adjustment For Status of Counsel 
and Defendant's Socio-Economic Status 

Finally, the Lawyers' Model suggested separate analyses for 

defendants (a) with appointed private counsel, and (b) with retained 

counsel or appointed counsel with an institutional affiliation, such as 

a public defender. 

 



  

-12- 9/15/83 

The status of defense counsel was known in 76% of the cases in 

the senple i’ Among the cases in the universe, the death sentencing 

rate is estimated at .10 (78/795) for defendants with appointed private 

counsel, and .05 (48/1002) for defendants with either retained counsel 

or appointed counsel with an institutional aefiliation. 2 This 

correlation suggests that the observed race of victim and race of 

defendant disparities in death sentencing rates may reflect a spurious 

relationship caused by the higher frequency of private appointed counsel 

in black defendant and white victim cases. In fact, however, black 

defendants have private appointed counsel only slightly more often than 

white defendants (.33 for black defendants v. .32 for white 

defendants)— Similarly, defendants with white victims have private 

appointed counsel only slightly more frequently than defendants with 

black victims (.37 for white victim cases v. .29 for black victim 

cases) .~ Moreover, multiple regression analyses indicate that the 

inclusion of a variable for the status of defense counsel does not 

  

1/ cases in the universe where the status of defense counsel 

estimated 29% of defendants had appointed private 

had appointed co el with unknown affiliation, 39% 

retained re I 17% had appointed counsel with an 

al affiliation. Because the Parole Board files usually 

institutional affiliation when it existed, it is 

to assume, as did the Lawyers' Model, that cases with 

unsel but an unknown affiliation are most likely 

inted counsel. In the analysis that follows that 

s applied in classifying the cases by the status of 

counsel. 

  

ion coefficient between the status of defense counsel 

eath sentencing result is r = .10 (statistically 

significant at the .01 level). 

v
y
 

o
r
 

3 The correlation is r = .01 significant at the .83 level. 

4/ The correlation coefficient is .07 (significant at the .05 level). 

 



«13 9/15/83 

  

explain or diminish the race of victim and race of defendant effects 

1/ cos 
observed in the data.~ The race of victim and race of defendant 

regression coefficients in weighted least squares analyses which 

controlled for the 39 background variables in Schedule 4 of Petitioner's 

Exhibit DB 96A and the status of defense counsel were as follows: 

  

Table 8 
Dependent Variable Race of Victim Race of Defendant 
and Unweighted Coefficients (with Coefficients (with 
Sample Size level of Statistical level of Statistical 

L Significance) Significance) 

Death Sentence Given .09 .05 
a Murder Indictment. {.01) (.08) 
(n = 773) 

Prosecutor Seeks a «13 .04 
Penalty Trial after (.02) (.47) 

Murder Guilt Trial. 

(n = 366) 

Jury Death Sentencing 35 3 
Result. (n=232) fe11) (.67) 

    
  

We also conducted a series of regression analyses in which racial po x 

ects imated while controlling for the 39 variables mentioned 

ove and a variable for the defendant's socio-economic status 

  

- 

endant counsel variable was coded: 1 if coun 

ate or appointed and status unknown, and 0 i 

ely retained or appointed with an institutional 

27 These analyses are based on the entire sample and also included an 
interaction term between race of victim and status of defense 

counsel which is discussed below. 

 



  

-14- 9/15/83 

(LSTATDEF) 37 the racial coefficients estimated in these analyses were 

virtually identical to those reported in Table 8, confirming that the 

race of victim and race of defendant effects observed in the data are 

not spuriously caused by the status of defense counsel or the 

2/ defendants' socio-economic status.— 

We next conducted separate regression analyses for the cases 

in Sample 4, first for defendants with private appointed counsel and 

then for defendants whose counsel was privately retained or appointed 

with an institutional affiliation. The status of defense counsel was 

known in 84% of the cases in Sample 4 and the results were as follows: 

  

l/ The correlation between defendant's socio-economic status (S.E.S.) 
Jeath sentencing result is .05 (significant at the .08 

] ; the correlation between the S.E.S. variable and race of 
defendant is .15 (significant at the .0001 level) indicating black 
efendants are considerably more likely to have low socio-economic 

2/ These analyses were also based on the sample of cases and included 
an interaction term between the defendant's socio-economic status 
and the race of victim. An analysis limited to the cases in Sample 
3 without an interaction term showed slightly enhanced race of 
victim and race of defendant effects when the variable for 
defendant's socio-economic status is included in the analysis. 

 



-15- 9/15/83 

  

Table © 

iI. RACE OF VICTIM FFFECTS 

Race of Victim Regression Coefficients (with level of statistical significance), 

Controlling for 39 Non-Racial Background Variables & the Race of Defendant 
  

    

Outcome All Cases Cases with Private [Cases with Defense Counsel 

Variable (n=354)— Appointed Defense Retained or Appointed With an 

Counsel Institutional Affiliation 

(n=169) (n = 127) 

A. Death Sentence ell 23 .05 

Given A Murder (.05) (.02) (.68) 

Indictment 

B. Penalty Trial 23 31 .04 

Held After {.02) (.01) {.85) 

Murder Guilt 

Conviction 

C. Jury Death 31 .07 35 

Sentencing (.34) {«72) (.43) 

Decision   
  

II. RACE OF DEFENDANT EFFECTS 

Race of Defendant Regression Coefficient (with level of statistical significance), 

Controlling for 39 Non-Racial Background Variables and the Race of Victim 
  

    

Ls 

A. B. 0) 

Outcome All Coses1/ Cases with Private | Cases with Defense Counsel 

Variable (n = 354)— Appointed Defense Retained or Appointed With 

Counsel an Institutionel Affiliation 

{(n = 169) {in = 127) 

Death Sentence ol «10 -.07 

Given A Murder (.20) {.25) {.51) 

Indictment 

Penalty Trial Held .06 .03 .02 

After Murder Guilt (.49) {.73) (.89) 

Conviction 

Jury Death -. 08 -.d13 -.10 

Sentencing Decision (.39) {.27) fe 72) 

    
1/ Status of defense counsel was unknown in 58 cases. 

 



-16~ 9/15/83 

  

These data show a substantial interaction between the status 

of defense counsel and the race of victim, i.e. the race of-victim 

effect is much stronger in cases with private appointed counsel than it 

is in cases where defendant's counsel is retained or appointed with an 

institutional affiliation. These results tell us that prosecutors are 

more inclined to be punitive in cases involving white victims (and to a 

lesser degree black defendants) if the defense attorney is in private 

practice and court appointed. One possible explanation for this pattern 

may be that private appointed attorneys put up less of a fight and 

otherwise develop less pressure on the prosecutor to accept a plea or 

unilaterally waive the death penalty. Under such circumstances, the 

system is more likely to respond to the pressure for a death sentence 

that is generated when the victim is white. These data have particular 

significance since over 75% (98/128) of death sentences are imposed in 

cases in which the defendant was represented by private appointed 

The status of defense counsel is also a proxy for the 

defendant's socio-economic status since counsel is appointed only for 

fd
 

x3
 

(o
h 

J
t
 

(0
) (1)
] 

= rt
 

(o
 7) 

{ Hh
 

D i]
 ot V]
 

~ “f
t 

wn
 

r
+
 

in
 

[()
 

mn
 

r
+
 

~
 0 oe
 

Q
 = jO
) Q ® 0 Hh
 

< f
e
t
e
 

Q lo
 

f
b
 = effect in private 

of culpability when the defendant is poor and a greater willingness of 

prosecutors and juries to respond to the pressure for a death sentence 

that arises when the victim is white. To test the extent to which the 

latter hypothesis is supported by the data, we conducted separate 

multiple regression analyses which included variables ("interaction 

terms") reflecting (a) the interaction between the race of victim and 

the status of counsel, and (b) the race of victim and the defendant's 

 



-17~ 9/15/83 

  

: ‘ 1 
socio-economic status. The results of these separate analyses were as 

    

  

follows: 

Table 10 

A. B. C. PD. EF. 

Race of Victim Race of Victim 

Interaction Main Effect 

Term With 

Status of Defendant's Status of Defendant's 

Defense Socio-Economic Counsel Socio-Economic 

Outcome Measure Counsel Status Analysis Status Analysis 

1. Death Sentence .04 .04 .09 07 

Given a Murder (.26) {.15) £. 01) (.001) 

Indictment 

2. Prosecutor Seeks «33 +14 213 +17 

a Death Sentence {.10) (.09) {.03) {.01) 

After a Murder 

Trial Conviction 

3. Penalty Trial .04 «05 «1B «13 

Death Sentencing (.81) (.78) {e11) (.19) 

Decision 

  

reflect how much larger on average the race of victim effect is when 

counsel is appointed (Col. B), or when the defendant's socio-economic 

status is low (Col. C). Columns D and E show the magnitude of the race 

of victim "main effect," which indicate race of victim in
 

at
 ~ D fo)
 

A
 MD
 = (4)
] 

QQ
 MD
 

  

/ The first analysis included, in addition to the racial variables, 

variables for status of defense counsel, the race of victim/status 

of defense counsel interaction effect, and the 39 non-racial 

background factors in Petitioner's Exhibit DB 96A. The race of 

victim coefficients (both main effect and interaction term) from 

these analyses are reported in columns B & D. The second analysis 

included, in addition to the racial variables, variables for the 

defendant's socio-economic status, the race of victim/defendant's 

socio-economic status interaction effect and the 39 non-racial 

background factors. The race of victim coefficients (both main 
effect and interaction term) from this analysis are reported in 
columns C & E. 

 



  

-18~- 9/15/83 

effect across all cases. Thus for the outcome measure "Death Sentence 

Given a Murder Indictment" (row 1, column D) indicates that in the 

analysis including the status of defense counsel variable, there is an 

average race of victim effect of 9 percentage points, while column B 

indicates a 4 point interaction effect with the status of counsel; thus 

the race of victim effect estimated in this analysis is 13 points in the 

cases with appointed counsel and 5 points when counsel is retained or 

appointed with an institutional affiliation. 

The results of the analysis in Table 10 indicate that the race 

of victim interaction effects are comparable with both the "status of 

defense counsel" and the "low socio-economic status" variables. One is 

fo
rt

 

1 +
h
 

c
t
 

i) therefore with the impression that both the competence, 

independence and energy of defense counsel, and the defendant's status 

pressure for a punitive response that arises when the victim is white. 

Our analysis of the questions posed by the Lawyers' Model 

® hat race of victim and race of defendant disparities in death fo
d = Oy
 

[0
 

0 vi}
 

a
i
 

D un
 

ct
 

sentencing rates persist among the most death worthy cases, both before 

and after adjustment for the leading non-racial background factors 

operating in the system (pp. 4-9). Similar disparities are also 

observed when the mitigating, aggravating and strength of evidence 

variables suggested by Lawyers' Model were introduced as background 

controls (pp. 9-10). The third phase of the analysis focused on the 

 



-19- 9/15/83 

  

status of defense counsel and the defendant's socio-economic status. 

Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the racial disparities in death 

sentencing rates observed in the system are explained by neither the 

status (and presumably competence) of defense counsel nor the 

defendant's socio-economic status. Our analysis of these two variables 

indicates, however, that the racial disparities, particularly the race 

of victim effect, are most pronounced among cases in which the defendant 

is indigent or has a private appointed counsel, a category of cases 

accounting for over 75% of the death sentences imposed. The system 

appears therefore not only to discriminate racially but also to allocate 

the principal burden of that discrimination to the poor and 

underprivileged. 

The results reported in this affidavit reinforce the opinions 

I expressed at the August 8-19, 1983 hearing about the role of racial 

factors in Georgia's capital Charging and Sentencing System. The data 

presented in that hearing indicate that as the cases became more 

aggravated, according to both statutory and non-statutory criteria, the 

observed racial disparities in death sentencing rates increase. For 

example, Petitioner's Exhibit DB 83 showed an average race of victim 

disparity (as measured in least squares analyses) of approximately © 

points, and that disparity increased to 10 points when the analysis was 

limited to death eligible cases under the two leading statutory 

aggravating factors (B-2 & B-7) (Petitioner's Exhibit DB 85). The 

awyers' Model considered in this Affidavit limited the analysis to a 

narrower, more aggravated set of cases, and the race of victim 

disparities were even larger (13 and 11 points) among those cases than 

 



  

-20- 9/15/83 

the disparities observed among the B-2 & B-7 cases (compare Table 5, 

tes Gs 1 Part I and Table 6 of this Affidavit with Petitioner's Exhibit 85) .L/ 

Locel LP ltt 
David C. Baldus 

  

State of Iowa, Johnson County ss: 

Subscribed and Sworn to by David C. Baldus before me 

on the 15th day of September, 1983 

  

    
   
    

/ 

2 aid 

go NY 
/ 

/ [54 

A 

\_¥4      
  

YY Similar results were also observed among the most aggravated 20% of 
the cases identified with a multiple regression analysis. See 
Petitioner's Exhibit DB 90 (race of victim) and DB 91 (race of 

defendant). 

   



  

LAWYERS' MODEL 
  

Include if: 

Indicted for murder, and if 

Defendant age greater than 18 and less than 65, and if 

One or more statutory aggravating circumstances present, and if 

Any of the following present: 

(A) Two or more statutory aggravating but not b(3) where b(2) 

present and not b(92) or b(10) where b(8) present. 

OR 

(B) One or more statutory aggravating circumstance and any one 

positive response in foils 

i161, 163, 164, 168, 170, 176, 176A,-177, 178A, 180,.181, 184, 

{C) Foil 82, 86, 90, 94, 98, or 102 is coded 1, 5 or 6, 

OR 

(D) Responses in each foil numbered 82, 86, 90, 94, 98 if that 

response is 12 or less, 

OR 

(E) Any response in foils 172-175B if the response is numbered 1, 

3,4, 9, 95,713, 14, 16, 

OR 

(F) Any response in foils 131-134A if the response is 

5,6, 6A, and if 
wumbered 3, » 

None of the following are present: 

(A) BA response in foil 121 carrying any of the following numbers: 
i, 2, 4, 5,6,:7,8,:9,:10,:-15,.416,.17, 18, 19,20, 

APPENDIX A 

 



  

(B) A positive response in foils 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 144a, 

145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152,.3153,'154, 155, 156, 

OR 

(C) Foil 237, 242, or 247 coded two and that co-perpetrator is 

equally culpable (i.e., foil under 48C, code A or B is coded one or 

two) and his treatment is lenient (i.e., his sentence foil is not 

coded 99, 98, or greater than 19 years). 

OR 

(D) Positive Response in foils 261, 264, 265, 266, 268A, 269, 270, 

281,282, 283, 288, 289, 294, 208, 299, 302, 303, 

OR 

There are a total of 4 or more positive responses in foils E) 

59-321D excluding foils listed in 5.D., and if 

( 
2 

Any one of the following is present: 

(A) Foil 385 not coded 5 and 390 not coded 1, and positive 

sponse in foils 323, 324, 327, 328, and where any three of the 

b>llowing foils also hve a positive response: 364, 365, 366, 367, 

8, 369, 385, (if coded 1-4), 389, 394-401, 446, 452, 453, 454, 

6, 467, 

e
g
 

iti esponse in 394, 395, 395A, 396, 397 and if 430 not 

and theses | or more positive responses in foils 322, 389, 

453, 454, 466, 467, 

OR 

(C) Foil 237, 242, or 247 coded 2 and positive response in foil 

405, 406, 40ean, 407, 408, 409, or 410 and at least six positive 

responses in the following foils: 389, 394-401, 446, 451-457, 460, 

461, 462, 466-469, 471, 472, 

(D) At least six positive responses in the following foils: 322, 

389, 428, 446, 451, 466, 467. 

Run this Group of Cases once where foil ten is coded two or eight and 
once where foll ten is coded either 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, or J. 

 



  

ARRAY SET? (J) LLF81 LDFB85 LDF89 LDF93 LDFY7 LDF101 

Coding for Variables in the Lawyers' Model 

Zo ARRAY SET2 a LDF82 LDF86_ LDP90 LDP94 LDP9Y98 LDF102 : : : 2% ARRAY SET3 (J) LDF172 LDF173 LDF174 LDF175 LDF1752 LOF175B LDF175 c | 28 LDF175D LDF175E : 2Y ARRAY SET4 (J) LDF131 LDF132 LDF133 LDF134 LDF134A ; 30 _ ARRAY SETS (J) LDF323 LDF324 LDF327 LDF328 ; ; 31 ARRAY SET6 (J) LDF3b4 LDF365 LDF3c6 LDP367 LDP368 LDP369 32 ARRAY SET7 (J) LDF452 LDP453 LDFP4SH4 ; | = 33 . ARRAY SET8 (J) LDFU66 LDP46T ; 
i 347 _AREAY AVS5B (J) LDF135 LDF13b LDF137 LDF338 LDF139 LDFP144A LDF145 DF 14 
35 LDF 148 LDF150 LDF151 LDF152 LDF153 LDF154 LDF155 LDF156 ; 36 ARRAY AV5D (J) LDF2o01 LDF264 LDF265 LDF2bb LDP268A LDF269 LDF230 
37 icy Ray wrEl eB) LDF282 Ne . 38 LDF283 LDF¢88 LDF28Y LDF294 LDF298 LDF29Y9 LDF302 LLP303 ; 39 ARRAY AVS5DD (J) LDF261 LDF2o4 LDF265 LDF2b6b LDF268A LDF269 LDF270 
40 1 _ ARRAY SET9 (J) LDF394 LDF395 LDF396 LDF397 LDF398 LDF399 LDF400 L "1 4 3 

41 ARRAY SET10 3 LDF394 LDP395 LDF395A LDF396 LDF397 : 42 RRRAY SET11-(J) LDF40S5 LDP40O6 LDF4O6A LDF40?7 LOFA08 LDFU09 LDFP410 
43 ARRRY SET12 (J) LDF394 LDF395 LDF395A LDF396 LDF397 LDF398 LDF399 44 LDF400 LDFu401 ; Bs : 45 ARRAY SET13 (J) LDF452 LDP453 LDPUSH LDF455. LDFU56 LDF4ST : 46 ARRAY SET14 (J) LDF46o LDF467 LDF468 LDFu469 47 Via = ( LDPBI=T1")"+ (LDFBI=1 J + ( LOFB3 = Y 6 LOFBZ = 0) + 48 LDFB4=1 ) + ( LDF86=1) + (LDFB7 = 1) + ( LDF88 = 1) + 49 LDFBY = 1 & LDFBB = 0 } + { LDPF310 = 1 & LDFB8 = 0 ) ; 50 IF V4A >= 2 THEN V4AA = 1 ; ELSE V4AA = 0 ; : | 21. IF 1=<LDF161=<2 OR 1=<LDF163=<2 OR 1=<LDF104=<2 OR 1=<LDF168=<2 © 
22 1=<LDF170=<2 OR 1=<LDF176=<2 OR 1=<LDF177=<2 OR 1=<LDF178L=<2 O 5 

53 1=CLDF180=<2 OR 1=<LDP1B1=<¢2 OR 1=<LDP184=<2 54 OR 1=<LDF176A=<2 THEN V4B =1 3; 55 : ELSE V4B = 0 ; 
56 ARRAY PCNT {J)_EN1 PR2 PN3 PN4 PN5 PN6 ; 
S51 PN1 = 0 ;: PN2 = 0 ; PN3 = 0.3; PHU = 0 3 'PN5 = 0 s+ PN6 = 0 ; 58 DO OVER SET1 : 
59 IF SET1 = 1% OR SET1 = *5% OK SET1 = '6% THEN DO ; 60 IP SET2 = 3UC® THEN SET2 = %#1% 3 61 PCNT E_INDOT (SETZ, 2. } 3 
bs END ; END : i 63 Syac = shu’ (OF PN1 PN2 PN3 PN4 ENS PN6 } ; 6 4 IF SV4C >= 1 THEN V4C = 1 ; ELSE V4C = 0 ; 
65 ARRAY OCNT (J) ON1 QN2 ON3 QN4 (NS QN6 
0b ON1 = 0 3 QN2 = 0 ; QN3 = 0 ; ON4 = 0 3 ONS = 0 ; ONE = 0 3; 67 DO OVER SET1 : 
64 80 IF SET1 = 31* OR SETT = *2% OR SET1 = *3% OR SET1 = ‘4% OR SET 

= 35 OJ 
69 SET1 = *6* Ok SET1 = *7* OR SET1 = '8% OR SET1 = %9* OR SET } = ¥10* OR | 70 SET1 = *11* OR SET1 = %12* THEN DO ; 71 IF SET2 = SUC* THEN SET2 = *1t ; 72 QCNT = INPUT (SET2, 2.) 3 13 END ; END ; 

APPENDIX B 

 



  

74 SV4D = SUM (OF QN1 ON2 N3 QN4 QN5 QN6 ) 
1: IF Sy4p.2 DE © THEN V4D = 2 FLSE VY4D = 0 3 

0 

77 DO OVER SET3 : = 78 IF SET3 = #1» OR SET3 = 33% OR SET3 = %4% OR SET3 = *y* OR 
19 _SET3 = *YA® OR SET3 = *13* OR SET3 = *J4* OR SET3 = %16" THE 
N VOE = 1 3 
BO END : 
81 vur = 0 aL Sen 
3 2 DO OVER SET4 —t = | 7 
83 IF SETH = '3' OR _SETH = *5% OR SETH = *6" OR SETH = SpAY THEN . 
84 V4F = 1 ; END ; | 85 IF 1=<LDF121=<2 OR 42=<LDFP131=<10 OR 15=<LDF121=<20 
80 OR _1=<LDF122=<2 OR 1=<LDF123=<2 OR 1=<LDF125=<2 THEN V5A = 1 : 
87 ELSE V532 = { ; 
38 vo = 0 ; 
89 DO OVER AVSB ; 
90 JF AVYSB = 1 OR AVS5B = 2 THEN VSB. = 1 : 
91 EXD 
92 VSD = 0 
93 DO OVER AVSD 3: 
gy IF 1=<AVSD= <2 THEN ¥5D = 1 3 — 
85 ERD; 
96 V5DD = 0 
97 DO OVER * AVS DD : 
93 : IF 1=<AV5DD=<2 THEN ¥5DD = YY: 
99 END ; 
100 IP 
101 {{( LDF237 = 2 ) AND 1=<LDF216=€2 OR 1=<LDF217=<2 ) AND 
102 (LDF238B = *1* OR LDFZ238 = 82% OR LDF238B = ®3% OR LDF238 = 4» 
OR 
103 LDF238 = ®5®* OR LDF238 = *6% OR LDF238 = ®37% OR LDF238 = gt 

R 
. 

104 = LDF233 = *10* OR LDF238 = *11' OR LDF238 = %12% OR LDF238 = 
3 Uh : 

182 ik LDF238 = *14* OR LDF238 = ®15* QR LDFZ238 = %16* OR LDF238 = °» 

106 on —LDF238 = *18® OR LDP238 = *19* OR LDF238 = *20%)) 

}08 ( LDP242 = 2 ) AND 1=CLDP222=€2 OR 1=<LDF223=<2 ) AND 
09 LDF243 = *1* OR LDP243 = $2% OR LDF243 = $3% OR LDP243 = sys 

OR 
110 LDF243 = 85% OR LDP243 = *G® OR LDF243 = ®7% OR LDF243 = 83% 
OR 
mn 'e LDP243 = ®*10® OR LDF243 = ®*11®* OR LDF243 = *12% OR LDF243 = *® 

: 0 : : 

112 “LDF243 = ®14" OK LDF243 = ®*15% OR LDF243 = ®16% OK LDF243 = * 
OR 

113 " LDF243 = %18" OR LDP243 = %19% OR LDF243 = %20%)) 
4 R | : : 

115 : { IDP287 = 2 AND ( 1=<LUF228=<2 OR 1=<LDF229=<2 ) AND 
110 LDF248 = ®1* OR LDFZ48 = *2®* OR LDF2i48 = ®3®* OR LDF248 = sy» 
OR 

117 LDF248 = ®5% OK LDPF24B = %6% OR LDF248 = ®*7% OR LDF248 = 31g» 
OK 
118 LDF248 = %10' OR LDP248 = *11% OR LDF248 = *12" ORK LDP2438 = ¢ 
13 UR 

13? LDF2u8 = *14° OR LDF248 = *15* OR LDF248 = *16" OR LDF248 =" 
Jn : fi a ro . sk 120 ~ LDF248 = %18* OR LDF348 = 319% OR LDF248 = %20')) 121 THEN ¥5C = 1 ; ELSE V5C 0 

122 VS5E= (1<=LDF259<=2) + (1<= LDF260<= 3) + (1<=LDP26 3<= 2) + (1<=LDF2067<=2} + ( 1K=LDF268¢=2)+ i = ni T°" 
123 : (&=iBr2ts BL (16 LDF272<= ik 1<=LDP273<=2} + (1<=LDF27u4<=2) + 124 1<=LDF275<=2) + (1<=LDF276<=2 1<=LDF276A<=2)# (1<=LDF277<=2) + ( 1<=LDF2774<&= 2) +. it: 
18a cy “(1<=LDF279¢= =2) + (1<=LDF280<£=2) + (1<=LD 
120 Lice —LDP285<=2) + (1<= =LDF286<=2) + (1<= LDF287<=2) + (1<=LDF290<=2) + (1 $SLDF293<=2) + 

A1<=LDF295<=2) + (1<=LDE296<=2) + (1<=LDF297<=2) + (1<=LDF300<=2) + (1 

 



  

<=LDF301<=2) + 
M28 3% (1<=LDF3Q4<=2) + (1<=LDF305<=2) + (1<=LDF306<=2) + (1<= 
1297 312¢<=2) + {1<=LDF308€=2) * (1<=LDP309<=2) + (1<=LDF310<=2) + (1<=LDF311<=2) +(1 -_— Fr -— 

330 + 17¢=2) + (1<=LDF313<=2) + (1<=LDF314<=2) + (1<=LDP315<=2) + (1<=LDF316<=2) + (1 
131 0 21A<=2y + (1<=LDF318<=2)+ (1<=LDFP319<=2) + (1<=LDF320¢= =2) + (1<=LDF321<=2) + (1_ 

= 3 

132 15 CE =LDFP321C<= Hirt 2) + 133 SE <=LDFP262<&= 2+ < LDE29 <= =2) +1) =LDF292 <=2)3; 
}33 -3F 5E LBL THEN V5EE = 1 ; ELSE V5EE = >a 

A prod Es 

136 IP Lora NE 5 AND LDF390 ~= 1 THEN DO ; 137 DO OVER SETS : 
138 IF SET5 = $1%°0OR SET5 = %2% OR SETS = *3% OR SET5 = %4b 139 "OR SETS = $94 Ok SET5 = %6* THEN V6A = 1 ; END ; 140 SI BRD 
141 SV6AAS = 0 
142 DO OVER SET12 
143 SV6AAS = SVGAAS + 1 =C{SET12=<3) + (11=<SET12=<13) + (21= —(SET12= 

+ 

Ty (31=<SET12= =Si% ; 
145 BED 3 on ga re 
146 SV6AAY = 0 
147 DO OVER SET6 ; DU Sd : 148 SV6AA1 = SV6AR1 + (SET6 = *1°% } 3 (SET = %2%) 3 (SPET6 = 339%) 3 
149 : (SET6 = *4*) + (SET6 = 5%) + (SET6 = '6') ; 
150 PND 3 
151 SVbAA2 = 0 : : 
152 DO OVER SET7 ; : ; 153 SV6AA2 = SVOAA2 + (SET7 = *1%) + (SET7 = %2%) + (SET7 = %3%) + 154 SET? = tur) + (SET] = 358) + (SETZ7 = 53%) + (SET7 = 6?) + 155 SET] = "7% + (SET) = 33%) + {(Sphy = 35¢y’> 
156 : END. ; oR 
157 SYoAA3 = 0 : 
158 DO OVER SETS : 
159 SV6AA3 = SVoAA3 + (SET8 = 820) (SETS = 33%) + (SETS = %4%) + 100 (SETS = 15% ) + (SETS = ‘ov + (SETB = "7% + (SET8 = %3°® 

» 

ho (SET8 = %Y* ) + (SETB = *10% } + (SET8 ='3a') ; 
102 ERD : 

103 I7 LDF389 = *1* OR LDF389 = 2% OR LDF38Y9 = *3% OR LDF389 = *4% O 
164 LDF389 = 358% OR LDF389 = ®PC® THEN SV6AA4 = 1 ; 165 ~ ELSE SY6ARG = 0 166 V6AA = (1=<LDF385=%4) + 
167 Lo 1=<LDFA4B=<2) $1 108 SUM (OF SV6RA1 SV6AAGL 169 SV6AAS SV6AR2 SVbAA3) 170 IF V6AA >= 3 THEN VoAAA = 1 ; ELSE V6RAA = 0 ; 
171 S¥6Rl = 0 3 7 i 
172 DO OVER _SET10 ; 
173 SY6B1 = SV6B1 + f11=<SET10=<13) + (21=<SET10=<23) + 174 (1=<SET10=<3) + 
175 ih T4312 SETI0=< 33) ; 
176 END 3 - : : 177 IF SV6B1 >= 1 AND LDP430 —= 2 THEN V6B' = 1 ; ELSE V6B = 0 ; 178 VoBB = (LDF322 = 1) + (LDF446 = 1) + 179 io SUM(QF SVY6AA2 SVOAA3 SV6AAY ¥ 180 IF V6BB >= 3 THEN VoBBB = 1 ; ELSE VBBBB = 0 
181 SVeCl1 = 0 3 al 182 DO OVER SET11 ; | \ : 183 SV6C1 = Svec} (1=<SETI1=¢3) + S1I2$SET11=<13) + 184 ang (21=<SET11=<23) + (31=<SeT11=<33) ; 
186 IF (LDF237=2 OR LDP242 = 2 OR LDF247 = 2 ) AND 
187 ...9¥6C1 >="1 THEN V6C = 1 ; ELSE V6C = 0 : 188 SV6CC1 = 0 
189 DO OVER SET 12 = 
150 SV¥6CC1 = SVACCT + §1=$5ET12=¢ 3) + {11=¢ =$SETI2- =<13} .¢ 
191 CL (2T=<SET12=<23) + (31=SET12=< 

 



1 

1 
1 
1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
T 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

  

C
A
D
 
O
W
 

s
O
 

E
w
e
n
 

ta
d 

wi
 
od
 

C
C
 
O
O
O
 
C
O
O
 

T
O
C
 
O
L
 

M
N
O
 
L
U
N
D
 

N
E
W
N
 

S
E
 

C
O
O
Y
E
D
 

  

| -
 

9
2
 - + 

0 * 

DO OVER SETY3 : 
SV6CC2 = SVACC2 + (SET13=%1%) + (SET13=%2%) + (SET13=%3%) + SETT3=%4Y) "+ (SET13355%) + (SET13=%6%) + (SET13=07%) + e SET13="8%} + lal; + (SET13=°'5A") ; 

E : : 
sveCcl = 03 RR ; DO OVER SETY4 
SV6CC3 = $id; + Seria ttt) + BETH 2%) + (SET14='3%) + (SE 
{SET 4= 6%) + (SET14="7" " + (SET14="8%) + (SETI4="9%) + es SET14=210%) + (SET14=*3 : 

V6CC =" {I=cIprusb=co) + (LDF451=1) + LDP461=1 ) + (LDF4o02=1) + 
ee SLDFU71=1) + (LDFH72=1) i. v6 dE8T 60 = “3 

SUM (OF SV6AAY SVoCC1 C2 Sveccs! 
IF V6CC >= 6 THEN V6CCC = Si LSE V6CoC = 0° . V6D = (LDF3j2= 1) + (LDF 28=1) = (Lorusis 1) + 
eo SLDPHUD = 1 ) + i 

UM (OF SVGAA3 SV6AAU ); 
IF VoD >= 6 THEN VoDD = 1 3 ZLSE V6DD = ( :



  

Computer Printout of Regression Analysis in Which the Sample 4 
Race of Victim and Race of Defendant Coefficients Reported in 

Parts IB, IIB,. IIIB of Table 5 (p.7) Were Estimated 

Part IA 

20:42 SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1983 

STEPWISE REGRESSION PROCEDURE FOR DcPENDENT VAKIABLE DEMURIDT 

THE FIRST 2 VARIABLES IN EACH MODEL AKE INCLUDED VARIABLES. 

STE 20 VARIABLE CPLESSEN ENTERED R SQUARE = 0.42831372 
: : C({P) = 13.15549708 

DF sIGHTED SS MEAR SQUARE ¥ PHOBOF 

KEGRESSION 13 er 35.3165218392 1.36201216 33.32 0.000% 
EnkOx 332 47.1376734 1 0.14198 155 
TOTAL 350 BZ .45409232 

b VALUE STU ERROR TYPE 11 SS oF _PROB>F 

I8TERCEPT -U.09134187 So 
® HV 1CxC 0.14529260 U4568448 1.43608%04 10.11 0.0016 
BELACKD 0.04667575 04342990 0.10399739 1.10 0.2833 
INSHOL 0.30081%470 JUl44S904 1.85619884 13.07 0.0003 
LDFo1 0.158691743 05555945 1.64 157280 11.56 0.0003 
TOKYU KE Ue.29090007 u9s57516ad 1.36514008 Y.01 0.0021 
DEFADA LY -0 12432754 O.0D8488487 _U.0406713%0 4235 0.0330 
NOKILL -0.19530459 0.05485024 1.87420110 13.20 0.0003 
AVEAGE U.562360681 U.22177503 0.91294740 6.43 0.0117 
LUFB1V 0.08359327 J.U4805783 0.41905317 2.95 010567 
TWUVIC 0.13701819 0.00992159 ~0,.54521240 3.834 ~~ 0.0509 
DRGHIS -0.08398542 0.03194903 0.98112504 0.91 0.0090 
MULSTaB U-15488004 V.04755848 1.505915%40 10.61 U.0012 
MULSa 0.08408571 U.U3540308 U.7744545y 5.45 0.0201 
CPLESS EN 0.05052227 04626952 0.54344140 3.83 0.0513 
VICCHILUD 0.23068503 06279751 “0.87740550 0.18 0.013% 
KIDNAP U.20100041 U.U5S505273 1.86332415 13.12 0.0003 
RaPL 0.20450523 03456548 1.44204905 10.706 0.0016 
LUFBTD 18378272 04379597 2.50018965 17.01 0.0001 

NO OTHER VARIABLES MET THE 0.7000 SIGKIPICANCE LEVEL PORK E£sTRY 

APPENDIX C 

 



  

Part IIB 

: 20:42 SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1983 

STEPWISE KEGRESSIUN PROCEDURE POR DEPENDENT VARIABLE PSEEKNGP 
THE FIRST 2 VARIABLES IN EACH MODEL ARE INCLUDED VARIABLES. 

SToe 9 VARIABLE RAPE ENTELKED —.... BR SQUARE = 0,34536041) 
a CAP). = ~~ 10.89279094 ine bras 

DF WEIGHTED SS MEAN SQUAKE F PROBOF 

REGKLSSIUN 11  T29:85799153 © 2.09% 18105 © 310.89 0.0001 
EHErOR 227 50 .21748953 U.24705414 
OAL 238 85.87548100 

B VALUE STD ERROR TYPE IX SS i rYrOp2F 

ILTERCERY 0.02501796 : WHY1CKHC VU.20388767 V.UB212991 2.55670791 I e32 0.0015 
B LACKD 0.,08208110 0.074252060 0.30262095 2 add 0.2701 TORTURE U.357623506 U.13805948 1.66078019 0.71 0.0102 LDroiu U.17147371 U.07019949 1.47765381 5.97 0.0153 
TwOVIC U.25378030 U.09895070 1.09363077 _b.04 0.0095 
Hale -0.20921959 0.08240655 1.59634503 C045 U.0118 nlbralok VU.53079881 045141018 b.1039254y 4.40 0.0358 
STRANGEK U.13043170 D.uo117179 1.23189545 §.,37 U.0267 
RAPE U.229750698 O.10935424 1.09323052 4.4% V.0307 
LDFby 0.14558329 VD. U5925379 1.49498 300 D.04 0.0148 
LLUFEBESYS Ue206934375 0.13072473 1.215327240 4.90 U.0279 

NO uTditk VAEKIABLES MET TUE 0.1000 SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL POR ENTRY 

Part IIIB 

S¥tP 10 VARIABLE VBED ENTERED = JUARE = 0.40974376 
: & (3 -2.36447221 

DF WEIGHTED SS MEAN SQUARE i PROBOF 

REGRESSION 12 10.93284290  1.4113107024 8.37 °° 0.0003 
EbBKOUR 155 24 .3920008Y9 0.15737 102 
TULAL 167 Lb1.325484379 ec 

B VALUE STD ERROK TTYPE IT SS — 2F PHORJF 

InrenCepel 0.390238418 : RT : a ar-3s3 ® 5V ICRC Ua07361040 U.09698669 0.09066743 0.58 0.4490 
BLELCKD -0.07579035 0.00973969 0.18586598 1.18 0.2783 
Inbal U.43U384870 J.16390U589 1.08505293 6.8Y 0.0085 
LUFB1 G-28002806 U.u9585924 1.40112139 8.90 0.0033 
DLEADER 0.23558932 0.09416112 0.93513189 adh 0.0134 
NURILL -0.46751880 i 09700179 . 3.05565400 £3.23 0.0001 
AVENGE UedU934048 24008870 0.70474402 4.48 U.0359 
DHEGHLS =0.27255832 v: .00960945 £.4712741.8 15.33 0.0001 
VBLD ~0.54911573 0-29723040 0.537115357 7 3.41 J.5500 MULSTADB 0.33312607 0.03176005 2.07415477 13.18 0.0004 
KibNAP 0.3355803Y9 V.07727979 2.94458230 15.71 0.00u1 
LOrs7D 0.20550287 0.06891940 1.40001269 2.90 0.0033 
Tn . — —— — A] — ——— {— qo. a ary at ok Se A ———— RE anna re EEE LS A tL bhb- 

NG UTHER VARIABLES nel THE 0.1000 SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL POR ENTRY 

 



  
  

TECHNICAL APPENDIX 

f 4 RI Sins Ai cn mi EO 

 



  

VARIABLE . § ABEL EE  ———— 

é BADID MISTAKEN [DENTITY CLAIMED 
808L 00D VIC AND DEF. HAD HISTORY OF BAD BLOOD 

BL VICMOD FAMILY »LOVER.L { QUOR, BARROOM QUARREL 
COPDIDIT = CO-PERPETRATOR CAUSED THE DEATH ; 
CCP HURYD DEF. PHYS. INJURED BY POLICE : 

CPLESSEN COPERP RECEIVED A LESSER SENTENCE 
CPLESSSN COPERP GOT LIFF SENTLLESS.NONE PRIOR DEF 
DABSENT | DEFe NOT AT SCENE 
DEADFACY MISTAKE OF FACY CLAIMED 

_DCOERCED | COERCION USED ON DEFENDANT - 
DDR INK  DEFe USED ALCOHOL.DRUG INMMED PRIOR CRIME 

DEFADMITY DEF. ADMIT GUILT AND NO DEFENSE ASSERTED 

DEFAGE DEF. AGE AY TIME OF CRIME 
_DEFCHILD DEF. JUVENILE OR STUDENT — ——y 

DEPRIVED DEF. HISTORY OF PHYSICAL OR ECON. DEPRIV 

DIGNORNTY DEF. UNAWARE OF PLAN TO KILL 
DISKID REASONABLE DISCIPLINE OF MINOR BY PARENY 

_DNCINT DEF. UNAWARE OF INTENT TO USE FORCE 

DNC INTNT LACK DF INTENT TO XiILL 
DNOVIOL DEF. COMMITTED NC VIOLENCE 
DPROUOPDEF DEFENSE OF HOME ,DWELL ING, OR PROPERTY 

DRGHIS HISTORY OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE 

DRUGDIS DISPUTE UNDER INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, ALCOHOL 

DSELFDEF DEFENSE OF SFLF OR OTHERS 

DVIOLOTH DEF. ONLY VIOLENCE WAS AGAINST OTHERS 

_FAMDIS FAMILY DISPUTE COTYHER THAN SPOUSELEXSPOUS 

GUNSTRUG GUN FIRED DURING STRUGGLE FOR GUN 

HATE HATE MOTIVE 
I NSANDCF INSANITY OR DELUSIONAL COMPULSION 

JEALOUS JEALDUSY MOY IVE — 
JOINTKIL DEFe ONLY AN ACCOMPLICE IN KILLING 

MITCIR MITIGATING FACTORS [INVOLVED 

MITCIRX NO. MITIGATING FACTORS INVOLVED 

MITOFFN DEF. RETIRED STUDENT JUVENILE HOUSEWIFE 
MITMOTVE DEF. MOTIVE HAYEL.REVENGE 3 JEALOUSY. RAGE 

MONDIS DISPUTE OVER MON OR PROP BETWEEN VICLDEF 

NOCONDUC DEF. HAD IMPAIRED MENTAL CAPACITY 
NOSPAGCR NO SPECIAL AGGe CIR. 
PANIC DEF .PANIC IN COURSE OF BURGLARY _ 
PHYILL DEF. HAD HISTORY OF PHYSICAL ILLNESS 
RAGE RAGE MOTIVE 
REVENGE REVFEFNGF MOYIVE 

SHOOTCUT | SHOOT-0OUT 
SMCAP IC  {MPAIRED CAPACITY 
SMDEFCO A DEF. CO-OP WITH AUTHORITIES 

 SMDEF JUS | DEF. HAD MORAL JUST, FOR ACTIONS 
SMDURESS A DEF. ACTED UNDER DURESS 
SMEMDIST DEF. UNDER EXTREME MENT OR EMOT DISTURB 
SMNOSREC | DEFe HAD NO SIGNIFe. CRIMINAL HISTORY 

_ SMPROVOK.__ | DEFENDANT ¥AS PROVOKED 
SMUNDRLG | DEF. ACCOMPLICE AND MINOR PARTICIPANT 
SMVICCPR | VIC WAS PARTIC IN OR CONSEN TO OWN DEATH 
SMYOUTH DEF. UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE 
SUICIDE TO FACILITATE VICTIM'S SUICIDE 2 — 

| TRIANGLE LOVER'S TRIANGLE 
| VABUSFRD | V PROV DEF BY ABUSE PERSON DEF CARE FOR 

| VASSAULD | VICTIM ASSAULTED DEFENDANT 

    

. VCOPERP | VICTIM WAS A COPERPETRATOR 

VDEFECT VICTIM MENTAL DEFECVIVE 

VFUGITIV VICTIM WAS A FUGITIVE 

aa  VICVERB._ | VICe VERS PROVOK DEFe BY ACCUS.ABUS, THRY 

VINJDEAR VIC. PHYSICALLY INJURED DEF. EARLIER 

VINJIFEAR VIC. PRIOR INJUR PERSON DEF. CARE FOR 

  VINJURD ViCe PHYSICALLY INJURED DEF. 

_ VPARTCRM | VIC. PARTIC IN OR CONSENY TO OWN DEATH 

VRECORD VICTIM HAD CRIMINAL RECORD 

a VSE XUP C WICTIM SEXUALLY AROUSED DEFENDANT 

VSHOMON  YiC. SHOWED TALKED ABOUT MUCH MONEY 

; _ VSUICIDE | SUICIDE BY VICTIM CLAIMED —— me 
VIHEAEAR VICe THREATENED DEF, EARLIER 

| VIHREAYT VIC. THREATENED PERSON DEF. CARED ABOUT 
VIHREATD VICe VERBALLY THREATENED DEF. 

_ YTRIFEAR | _VICe VERB THREAT PERSON DEF. CARED FOR 

| SCHEDULE 1 

 



      

SMCAPIC----IMPAIRED CAPACITY 

SMUNDRLG---DEF. ACCOMPLICE AND MINOR PARTICIPANT 

BADID~ ~~~ MISTAKEN IDENTITY CLAIMED 

CPLESSEN---COPERP RECEIVED A LESSER SENTENCE 

DABSENT=-=--DEP, NOT AT SCENE 

DBADFACT---MISTAKE OF FACT CLAIMED 

DCOERCED---COERCION USED ON DEFENDANT 

DEFADMIT---DEF. ADMITTED GUILT AND NO DEFENSE ASSERTED 

INSANDEF---INSANITY OR DELUSIONAL COMPULSION 

JOINTKILL--DEF. ONLY AN ACCOMPLICE IN KILLING 

MITCIR= =~’ MITIGATING FACTORS INVOLVED 

PANIC =r~~ DEF. PANICKED IN COURSE OF BURGLARY 

NOCONDUC---DEF. HAD IMPAIRED MENTAL CAPACITY 

LDFBlr—~=re=- PRIOR RECORD OF MURDER, ARMROB, RAPE ,KIDNAPPING 

WITH BODILY INJURY 

LDFR2~= mmm CONT. MUR, ARMROB, RAPE, KID/BODINJ, AGBAT, BUR 

LDFB6~===wm MURDER FOR HIRE 

IDFBI7A-~~~~ MUTILATION BEFORE OR AFTER DEATH 

1DFPB/B~—~=~ UNNECESSARY MULTIPLE WOUNDING 

LDFR7D—==m=~ RAPE /ARMROB/KIDNAPPING AND SIL. WITNESS/ 

EXECUTION/VICTIM PLEADING 

ILDFB7E~>~—r TORTURE /DEPRAVITY 

IDFB7F—=~~~ DEPRAVITY/SEX PERVERSION/VICTIM PLEADING 

IDPES-~—=~w DEF. PRISONER OR ESCAPEE 

IDFEl10—~~~~ KILL TO AVOID, STOP ARREST OF SELF OR OTHER 

SCHEDULE 2 

 



    

VAR TABLE 

H
y
 

n
n
 

4
 

(
W
R
 

RS
 

RW
) 

4ISYTAGE 
NJVICDPR2n 
32 SNON 

RALEMNT 
TWIVIZAaL 
VIZFNS_S 

VICCHILD 
VAI TNESS 
SMDEFCD 
SMIEF JUS 
SMDOUJNFSS 

S5$-M4MDISY 
SUNNSoEC 
SH42RJI VIL 

SMUNDPRL 5 
SMYOUTH 

MJIPRIDR 
MAJAGFCX 
3ADID 
BD3LIDN 
cD2DIDLY 
CO3HURTD 
LB_ESSEN 
2 _ESSSN 
DA3 SENT 
D3ADFACT 
DLOERCED 

WV
 

WJ
 

Ad
 

V
I
 

Do
ra

 

I
O
C
 
Z 

oa
n 

41 
BR 

gl
 

> 
rt
 

V
I
 

oH
 

(R
Y 

V
V
U
V
U
W
V
G
 UV

 

ru
 
o
m
y
 

AD
 

Z
F
 

ve
t 

ve
n 

ge
 
S
A
 

L
L
L
 

=
1
0
m
m
n
 

W
W
D
 
W
H
Y
 

Z — 

T
e
 — 

< bt
 

“
~
 

n
r
 

n Jen 

JEALOUS 
JOINTKIL 
“ITZ in 

VARIABLE 
LABEL 

PRIOR REC OF MURIARMROB,RAP KID W/BODINJ 
CONT MUR SARMROB,RAP KX ID/BODINJ+AGBAT BUR 
DEF.CAUSED DEATHRISK IN PUBJPLACE YO >2 
MURDER TO GET MONEY/VALUE FOR SELF/OTHER 
MURDER FOR HIRE 
VICTIM POM ICE/CORRAECTIONS/FIRE ON DUTY 
DEF + PRISONER OR ‘ESCAPEE 
KILL YO AVOID .STUOP APREST OF SCLF.0OTHER 
MUTILATION BEFORE OR AFYER DEATH 
UNNECESSARY MULTIPLE WOUNDING 
RPAPE/ARMROB/KID#SIL.AIT/7EXEC/VIC PLEADED 
TORTURE/DEPRAVITY 
DEPRAVITY/SEX PERVSERSION/V IC PLEAD 
DEFe« LAY IN WAIT 
VICTIM WAS A HOSTAGE 

IM OFFERED NO PROVOCATION 
IM KILLED W]l1TH POISON 
AL HATRED MOTIVE 
CTIMS XI. LED BY DEFs AND/OR LOPERP 

VICTIM PREGNANT sDISABLEDs GOR HELPLESS 
VICTIM WAS 12 (IR YOUNGER 
VICTIM WAS WITNESS 
DEFe CO—-0P WITH AUTHORITIFS 
DEF. HAD MORAL JUST. FGR ACTIONS 
DEF. ACTED UNDER DURESS 
DEF. UNDER FXTREME MENT DR EMOT DISTURS 
DEFe HAD NO SIGNIF. CRIMINAL HISTORY 

  

VICT 
VICT 
RACH 
2 vi 

- DEFENDANT #AS PROVOKED 
DEFe« ACCOMPLICE AND MINOR PARTICIPANT 
DEF« UNDER 17 YEARS DF AGE 
DEFe CLAIMED ACCIDENT 
DEFs AIDED VICTIMS - in mm 
DEFe SHOWED REMORSE 
DEF«. SURRENDERED wW/IN 24 HOURS 

MULTIPLE HEAD SHOTS 
NC.VPC COMV (BESIDES HOM/ARMROB/RAP/KID) 
>1 VPC C2JINV (BESIDES HOM/ARMROB/RAP/KID) 
NUM Of PRIOR MUR, CONVICT DEF 
NO. OF MAJUR AGGR FACTORS IN CASE 
MISTAKEN IDENTITY CLAIMED 

VIC AND DEF. HAD HISTORY OF BAD BLOOD 

CO-PERPETRATOR CAUSED THE DEATH 

DEF« PHYS. INJURED BY POLICE 
COPERP RECEIVED A LESSER SENTENCE 

COPERP GOT LIFE SENT,LESS.NONE PRIOR DEF 

DEF« NOY AT SCENE 
MISTAKE OF FACY CLAIMED 

COERCION USED CN DEFENDANT 

DEF. USED ALCOHOL +DRUG IMMED PRIOR CRIME 

DEF. ADMIT GUILT AND NO DEFENSE ASSERTED 

FDEF + AGE AT TIME OF CRIME 

{ DEFe JUVENILE OR STUDENT 

| DEF. HISTORY OF PHYSICAL OR EC3N. DEPRIV 
REASUNABLE DISCIPLINE OF MINOR BY PARENT 

! DEF. UNAWARE OF INTENT TO USE FORCE 
LACK OF INTENT TO KILL 
DEF. COMMITTED NO VIOLENCE 
DEFENSE OF HOME.DWELLINGs OR PROPERTY 
HISTORY OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE 
DISPUTE UNDER INFLUENCE CF DRUGS. ALCOHOL 
DEF. ONLY VIOLENCE WAS AGAINST OTHERS 
FAMILY DISPUTE OTHER THAN SPOUSE.EXSPOUS 
GUN FIRED DURING STRUGGLE FOR GUN 
HATE MCTIVE 
INSANITY CP DELUSIONAL COMPULSION 
JEALOUSY MOTIVE 
DEF. ONLY AN ACCOMPLICE IN KILLING 
MITIGATING FACTORS INVOLVED 

SCHEDULE 3



  

JITZi1aX 
MITDFFN 
MI YMDOTVE 
AINDIS 
NJS2ALGCR 

<
n
 

< 9
 3) 

Q 

1 
~ 

r
e
 

A
 

| 

V
O
 

N
m
 

- 

VA3iIJSF=)D 

VAT CUSED) 

VASLEED 

YASSALLLD 

VAS SAULY 
VASESDEAR 

VASTFEAR 

ya =D) 

VI.IPFRR2 

DEF ENLS 

VII=EFETY) 
vi vrgeR 

vINJDEAR 
VINJFFAR 
VINJURD 

VINE 
YI2IEG 

VS 4A. 1 

VSI c 1 He 

vTH- AFAR 

VTHADEAT 

VT ARFATD 

VII TFFAR 
VAT AK 
SYIANGED 

NOVPROV 
VIOLENCE 
DTHINK 
PRIOVPASS 
EZARVWED 
S2MSESK 
DSTATVM 
DJAUTSTAT 
FEADFEF 
CO3ERHUT 
Tne aAlES 

NO. MITIGATING FACTORS INVOLVED 
DEFe RETIRED, STUDENT, JUVENILE HOUSEWIFE 
Des MOTIVE HATE REVENGE. JEALOUSY yRAGE 
R6PSHLE AY RM 0% PROP BETWEEN VIC+DEF 

«PANIC IN COURSE OF BURGLARY 
DEF. HAD HISTORY ; DEFs HAD 4 OF PHYSICAL ILLNESS 

REVENGE MOTIVE 
SHOOT -0UT 
LOVER'S TRIANGLE 
DEFENSE OF SELF OR OTHERS 
DEF. HAD IMPAIRED MENTAL CAPACITY 
FAMILY ,L OVERsL IQUOR. BARROOM QUARREL 
VIC. VERBALLY ABUSED DEF. EARLIER 
VIC. VERBAL ABUSE FRIEND OF DEF .- 
V PROV DEF BY ABUSE PERSON DEF CARE FOR 

VICTIM ASLFE® OR JUST AWAKENED 

T1Y4 ASSAULTED DEFENDANT 

ASSAULTED PERSON DEF. CARED ABOUT 

ASSAULTED DEF. EARLIER 

VERB THREAT PFRSON DEF. CARED FOR 

IM BED-RPIDDEN/HANDICAPR2ED 

IM #AS A CDPERPETRATOR 

ENSELESS VICTIM DUE TO YOUTH 

TIM DEFENSELESS NUE TO ADVANCED AGE 

VERS PROVOK DEF. BY ACCUS as ABUS+THRT 

DHYSYCALLY INJURED DEF. EARLIER 

PR [NR INJUR PERSON DEF. CARE FOR 

PHYSICALLY INJURED DEF. 

INJURED PERSON DEF. CARID ABOUT 

IM PREGMANY 

NEFNSLS DUF TO S1ZE DIFF «NO. OF DEF 

“1DF BY VICTIM CLAIMED 

THREATENED DFF. EARLIER 

THREATENED PEPSON DEF. CARED ABOUT 

VEPIALLY THREEATENED DEF. 

VEPR THREAT PERSON DEF. CARED FOR 

IM WEAK CR FRAIL 

VICTIM A STRANGER 

DEF INVOLVE. IN FELONY AT TIME OF KILLING 

HOMOIC IDE APQSE FROM A DISHUTE ,F1GHT 

LOVERS IN A RAGE 
MAL ICE/DEADLY WEAPON W/O MITIGATION 

MALICE/ZVICT IM DEFENSELESS 

MALICE/NO VICTIM PROVOCATION 

MAL ICE/VIOL ENCE 
MAL {ICE/ODELIBFRATION 

PROVOCATION AND SUDDEN PASSION 

DEF. FEAR/V AEAPON 

DISPUTE BETWEEN SPOUSES OF EX—-SPDOUSES 

DEFe STATEMNT SUPPORT VOL. MANSLAUGHTER 

DEFe FROM DUTY CF STATE 

DEFENDANT A FEMALE 

CGPERP INJURE PEOPLE BEYOND viC 

COPERP TESTIFIED AGAINST DEF. 

DEF. SEEN IN ACT BY ONE WHO KNEW HIM 

PPIM. WIT PCL OFF.CIVIL. w/NO CkED. PROB 

ID wIT OF DEF W/wEAP NEAR SCENZ OF CRIME 

ID WIT OF COPERP COMMIT CRIME NEAR SCENE 

PRIMARY WITNESS WAS CORROBORATED 

IDENT OF THE DEF. NOT IN DOUBT AS KILLER 

LO¥ SES STATUS DEF 

“
l
o
 0 

o 

Pr
t 

po
y 

bo
 

pt
 

pun
y 
(
F
o
 

pg
 

pom
 

tg
 

bt
 

pro
n 

bt
 

pn
t 

[T
] 

en
 

he
m 

me
 

ben
t 

pg
 

(
V
8
 

«
4
0
 

» 
a 

o 
@ 

C
L
K
 

K
C
K
 

C
L
K
 
L
L
U
 

LC
LK
<K
 
L
K
 

KL
 

O
O
O
O
 

D
N
D
N
 
C
O
D
O
D
N
O
N
D
O
 

D
T
D
 

~~
 

6 
oo

 
¢ 

@ 

SCHEDULE 3 ( page 2) 

 



  

zDeP=ERP 
—T3B2ERPX 
CosHRNTS 

TPYANRSEN 

FAIREST 

DIoONVICY 
dra Nv ICY 

~H1jY 

sm
 
T
O
 
A
m
a
)
 

1) 
1 

()
 

a 
= 

wf
 
>
 

wr
 
Z
N
 

T
T
Y
 

we
 

iT
) 

~~
 

U
m
 

'
1
2
 

4
 

| 
x
X
 

fy
i 

) 

“i
 <4 

r 

P
y
 

w 

< 

b
—
 

x 

“ 
2 

L
 ~ [4
] 

C
H
T
 

H
A
T
O
 

N
X
 
a
u
l
 

JN
 

N
e
z
 
u
e
 

oi
 

P
l
 > > 

“J
 
X
p
 

wl -y
 

4
 

>»
 

Si
na
 
w
i
)
 

4 
"4

 
{)

 
~ 

hy
 § 

A
V
M
T
 

i 
5 

vs
 7 &
 < 

2
B
 
N
S
A
 

S
A
M
O
 

T
N
T
N
I
N
U
U
 
J
W
U
W
I
G
V
W
Y
 

(L
L 

po
t 

ro
d 

p
g
 

bo
oq
 

|
]
 

mm
 

N x 

Mil STAR 

NIL nT 
NIJINDRND(C 

NORE = 

NAIy IMI Y 

YT7THDFEFTYX 

Vol ARRR 
VEZ ARIRX 

raANVICTX 

CONVILC 

ONE OR MORE CO-PERPETRATORS INVOLVED 
NO. OF COD-PEPPETRATORS 
CO-PERP FIRED 5 OR MURE SHOTS 
DEF*S COPER RECEIVED A HIGHER SENTENCE 
DEF. 16 DR YOUNGER AT 1ST FELONY ARREST 

NO« CF PRIOR ARRESTS 
(FBI) DEF WAS CONVICs FELONY OR MISDEM 

NGC. OF CINVICs FELONYEMISDEMEANDORS (FBI) 

NEF. INJURED 1 OR MOREWNTHER PEGPLE 
OF CRIME DEF. LEFTY THE SCENE 

NEF, HAD 1 OR MURE DEYAINERS 

DEF. AGF AY TIME OF FIHSY FELONY ARREST 

OFF. <ILLED DOR PARTICIPATED IN KILLING 

DEF. HAD PRIOR MURDER OR MANSLTER CONVIC 

DEF. RELEASED FROM PRISON W/IN LAST YEAR 

VICTIM wAS DROWNED 

DEF. FIHSD FIVE JR MORE SHOTS 

DEF. NOT ILL BUT DID VICLENCE. YO VICTIM 

DEF. HAD FELONY ARREST 

NCe OF DEF. FELONY ARRESTS 

FEMALE VICTIM 

VICTI¥ KILLED WITH GUN 

DEF. MOTIVE ¥0 COLLECY 
KIDNAPPING INVOLVED 
MENTAL TORTURE 
NJ. OF MINOR AGGR FACTORS IN CASE 

DEF. HAD CONE OR MGRE MISDEM ARRESTS 

NO, OF MISDEMEANOR ARPESTS 

RICORD UF 1 JR MORE MISDEMEANOR CONVICT. 

MULTIPLE GUNSHOTS 
MULTIPLE STABBING . 

VICTIM WITHOUT CLOTHES WHEN KILLED 

NON-PROPERPTYY PFLATED CUNYEMP. CRIME 

DEF. SHOWED NO REMORSE FOR HOMOCIDE 

NO VICTIM PELATED MITIGATING CIRCUM 

NON—-VIOL CONT CRIME (BESIDES BURG/VICE) 

CONTEMP. OF FENSE PLANNED MORE THAN 5 MIN 

NUMBER OF PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS 

RAPE INVOLVED 

DECENT NIN-VICLENT CRIME BY DEF. 
W/2 YRS HOMOC. 

INSURANCE 

DEF. ARRSY FOR VIOL CRIME 

NO, PRICE CONVICT, FOR vi(L PERS CRIMES 

SLOW DEATH 
VICTIM STRANGLED 
VICTIM TORTURED PHYSICALLY 

DEFe KILLED TWD OR MORE PEOPLE 

NO OF VPC CONV SEYOND HOM/ARMROB/RAP/KID 

NO. TIMES DEF. IN YTH DETENTION CENTER 

ONE OR MORE CONVICTIONS:VPC/3URG/ARSON 
CONVICTIONS :VPC+8BURG/ZARSON 1ST DEG. NOe 

ND. OF PRIOR CCNVYIC FOR FIOLONIESsMISDMRe. 

DEF. HAD PRIOR CONVICT. FELONY OF MISDMR 

SCHEDULE 3 (page 3) 

emg RE STO A A TE SS VE JE co DT ATI  



  

MITION - 
N 

NAIZONVIC 

NOK ILL 

NOIR] SON 

vIZARMED 

VY CLOSE 
VOL MANS 

DEFFEAR 

== INT OX 
INDPLCDF 

INIT IND 
ADDR] ME 

3VIGAG 
=oNLFLAaD 

BRI SON 

BSAC IN 

W
J
)
 
U
r
a
 M
 

X
L
)
 

ma
 

U
N
T
O
 S
C
 

N
E
V
A
 

O
M
L
T
 

INZRREMK 

DEFe SURREND. MORE THAN 24 HR AFT. CRIME 

CRIME OF ANGER 
DEFe CLAIMED INVOLe MANS. 

DEF. HAD HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS 
NO PRIOR ARREST OR CCNVICTIONS 

NO PRION? CONVICTIONS 

DEFENDANT NOT TRIGGERMAN 
DEF. NEVER INCARCERATED 
VICTIM WAS APMED 

VICTIM FAMILY FRIEND, INTIMATE 

DEFes CLAIMED VOL. MANS, 
VICTIM ARCUSED DEfe FEAR 

DEF. SUBSTANY. AFFECTED BY ALCOHDL.DRUGS 

NO PLAN OR DEF IGNT OF PLAN FOR CONT OFF 

DEF NOT INVOLVED IN CONTEMP (FF. 

DEF. COMMIT OR ALLEG COMMIT ADD. CRIME 

VICTIM BOUND OR GAGGED 

DEF. YRIED TO DISPOSE OF OR CONCEAL B80D0Y 

DEF. PRIM MNVER PLAN HOMICID,CONTEMP OFF 

DEF. EXPRESSED PLEASURE WITH THE KILLING 

DEFe RESISTED ARREST 

RCDILY HAPM YO OTHER THAN VICTIM 

vICTIM FORCED TO DISROBE 

SEX PERVERSION OTHER THAN RAPE 

KILLING PLANNED MGRPE THAN 5 MINUTES 

DEF HAS BEEN INCARCER AFTER CONVICTION 

NU OF DEF FELGNY PRISON TERMS 

DEF. RROKE INYD VICTIMS RESIDENCE 
SLASHED THPOATY OF VICTIM 

KYI1L 1 UNNEC. TO CARRY QUY CONTEMP. OFFENS 

VIC. KILLED IN PPES., OF FAMJL/CLOSE FRNDS 

VICTIM PLEADED FDR LIFE 
MONTHS DEF PRIOR INCARCERATED 

EXECUTION STYLE KILLING 

DEF HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME 

NO WIT ,NO PRETRIAL ID,NO COPERP STATEMNT 

COPERP STATEMNT IMPLICAT DEF IN HOMICIDE 

DEF. ADMITTED HOMICIDE ~ WITH NO DEFENSE 

ID WIT DEF. COMMIT CRIME OR NEAR SCENE 

MED REPORT LINK DEATH TO DEFe ACTIONS 

WIT HEARD INCRIM REMARK BY DEF OR COPER 

POL ICE REPORT INDICATED CLEAR GUILTY 

POLICE WIT DEFe COMMIT CRIMEsNEAR SCENE 

OCNE OR MORE WIT. RE. PREPARATION 

T HERE WAS A PRE—-TRIAL ID OF DEF 

SCIENCE EVID OTH THAN WEAPON OR MEDICAL 

MURDER WEAPON FOUND,LINK DEF TO HOMICIDE 

AN ID WITNESS OF DEFe OR CO—-PERP 

2 OR MORE WIT DEF. COMMIT CRIMEsNEARBY 

APMED ROBBERY INVOR VED 7 To 

MOTIV TO AVENG ROLE BY JUD. OFFsDA,LAWYR 

BRUTAL CLUBBING OR STOMPING 

SCHEDULE 3 (page 4) 

EE SER ER IE = < ATI RRS T s a 0 y: Ey MAA a Ya oe 3 ry yz (x Fa 2S > ‘3 - 

BE OS TE 0 Cy EN AS SL EE SA ESP mye SF A a EMRE neers ESR  



  

VARIABLE 

ARMROB 
AVENGE 
BLVICMAD 
COPERP 
CPLESSEN 
DEFADMIT 
DLE ADER 
DRGHIS 
DRO WN 
FEMDEF 
HATE 
INSMOT 
JEALOUS 
K iDNAP 
LDFB1 
LDF83 
LDF B& 
LDF 8s 
LDFESs 
LOFRO 
LDFB1 0 
LDFR7D 
MENTORT 
MITDFFN 
MUL SH 
MULSTAB 
MURPRIOR 
NOK ILL 
NONPROPC 
PRI SONX 
RAPE 
SMYQUTH 
STRANGER 
TORTURE 
T¥OVIC 
VBED 
VICCHILD . 
VPCARBR 
V¥WE AK 

   EE A EB aT ESB RS Ror Gp ae oR FR £3 0 SE RA BN EAT 

LABEL mse cr —————— EEE IL 

ARMED ROBBERY INVOLVED 

FAMILY,L OVERL.L fOUOR,BARROON QUARREL 
ONE OR MORE CO-PERPETRATORS INVOLVED 
COPERP RECEIVED A LESSER SENTENCE 
DEF, ADMIT GUILTY AND NO DEFENSE ASSERTED 
DEF. PRIM MOVER PLAN HOMICID.CONTEMP OFF 
HISTORY OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE 
VICTIM WAS DRO¥NED 
DEFENDANT A FEMALE 
HATE MOTIVE 
DEFe MOTIVE TO COLLECY [INSURANCE 
JEALOUSY MOTIVE 
KIDNAPPING INVOLVED 
PRIOR REC OF MUR,ARMROB.,RAP,KID W/BODINJ 
DEF. CAUSED DEATHRISK IN PUBPLACE TO >2 
MURDER YO GEY MONEY/VALUE FOR SELF/0OTHER 
MURDER FOR HIRE - 
VICTIM POL I CE/CORRECTIONS/F IRE ON DUTY 
DEF. PRISONER OR ESCAPFE 
KILL TO AVOID.STOP ARREST OF SFELF,0OTHER 
RAPE/ARMROB/KID#*SILLYWIT/EXEC/VIC PLEADED 
MENTAL TYORYURE 

DEFe« RETIRED STUDENT JUVENILE HOUSEWIFE 
MULTIPLE GUNSHOTS 

MOTIV TO AYENG ROLE BY JUD. OFF DAL AWYR 

MULTIPLE STABBING 
NUM OF PRIOR MUR. CONVICY DEF. 
DEFENDANT NOT TRIGGERMAN 
NON-PROPERYY RELATED CONTEMP, CRIME 
NO. OF DEF FELONY PRISON TERMS Er 
RAPE INVIRVED 

DEF. UNDER 17 YEARS OF AGE 
VICTIM A STRANGER . PORIR a 3   
VICTIM TORTURED PHYS ICALLY 
DEF. KILLED Y¥O OR MORE PEQPLE 
VICTIM BED-RIDDEN/HANDICAPPED 
NICYIM WAS 12 OR YOUNGER ERR AR 
ONE OR MORE CONVICTIONS: VPC/BURG/ARSON 
VICTIM WEAK OR FRAIL 

SCHEDULE 4 

     Re RE Tr RR SS SE LR    



  

NOCONDUC--DEF. IMPAIRED MENTAL CAPACITY 

NOKILL----DEF. NOT THE TRIGGERMAN 

RACEMOT---DEF. RACE MOTIVE 

AVENGE----MOTIVE TO AVENGE ROLE OF D.A, JUD. OFF., LAWYER 

INSMOT----INSURANCE MOTIVE 

KIDNAP----KIDNAP INVOLVED 

TORTURE---TORTURE INVOLVED 

DPLEAS----DEF. EXPRESSED PLEASURE 

LDFB7EXP--THE NUMBER OF STATUTORY AGG. FACTORS IN CASE 

MAJAGFCX--THE NUMBER OF MAJOR AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN CASE 

MINAGFCX--THE NUMBER OF MINOR AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN CASE 

INSANDEF--DEF. INVOKED INSANITY DEFENSE 

DEFADMIT--DEF. ADMITTED GUILT WITH NO DEFENSE ASSERTED 

EVIDINDX--THE NUMBER OF MAJOR EVIDENTIARY FACTORS 

INCRIMINATING THE DEFENDENT. 

SCHEDULE 5 

 



  

DSHOOT----DEF. FIRED 5 OR MORE SHOTS 
MITMOTVE--DEF. HAD MITIGATING MOTIVE 

VRECORD---VICTIM HAD CRIMINAL RECORD 

DRGHIS----DEF. HAD DRUG HISTORY 

DCOERCED--DEF. CLAIMED HE WAS COERCED 

DFSTCRIM--DEF. AGE AT TIME OF FIRST FELONY ARREST 

VICCHILD--VICTIM WAS 12 OR YOUNGER 
PRISONX--NUMBER OF DEF. PRISON TERMS 
EXECUT---EXECUTION STYLE MURDER 
RACEMOT--DEF. HAD A RACIAL MOTIVE 
NUDE~~=~~ VICTIM FORCED TO DISROBE 

LDFB7EXP-NUMBER OF STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS 

INSMOT---INSURANCE MOTIVE 
PANIC----DEF. PANICKED IN COURSE OF BURGLARY 

SCHEDULE 6 

 



  

LDFBl-~--- B 1 CONVICTION 

LDFB]10----KILLED TO AVOID OR STOP ARREST OF SELF OR OTHER 

LDFB7D----B2 OFFENSE W/SPECIAL AGGRAVATING FACTORS 

RACEMOT---RACIAL HATRED MOTIVE 

VDEFNSLS--VICTIM PREGNANT, DISABLED OR HELPLESS 

VWITNESS--VICTIM WAS WITNESS 

NOCONVIC--NO PRIOR CONVICTIONS 

NOKILL----DEFENDANT NOT TRIGGERMAN 

DNOPLCOF--NO PLAN OR DEFENDANT WAS IGNORANT OF PLAN 

FOR CONTEMPORANEOUS OFFENSE 

BDCAG-———~— VICTIM BOUND OR GAGGED 

DLEADER---DEFENDANT WAS PRIME MOVER, PLANNED HOMICIDE, 

@ CONTEMPORANEOUS OFFENSE 

DPLEAS----DEFENDANT EXPRESSED PLEASURE WITH THE KILLING 

HARMOTH---BODILY HARM TO OTHER THAN VICTIM 

NUDE~—=m=x VICTIM FORCED TO DISROBE 

CPSTATEM--COPERPETRATOR'S STATEMENT IMPLICATES DEFENDANT 

IN HOMICIDE 

DCONFESS--DEFENDANT ADMITTED HOMICIDE WITH NO DEFENSE 

INCMDRPT--MEDICAL REPORT LINKED DEATH TO DEFENDANT'S 

ACTIONS 

POLGUILT--POLICE REPORT INDICATED CLEAR GUILT 

SCIEVID---SCIENCE EVIDENCE OTHER THAN WEAPON OR MEDICAL 

AVENGE----MOTIVE TO AVENGE ROLE OF JUDICIAL OFFICER, DIS- 

TRICT ATTORNEY, LAWYER 

CPMORSEN--DEFENDANT'S COPERPETRATOR RECEIVED A HIGHER SEN- 

TENCE 

Ro DROWN—-~——~ VICTIM WAS DROWNED 

SCHEDULE 7 

 



  

| @ IRSMOT—==-- DEFENDANT'S MOTIVE TO COLLECT INSURANCE 

| KIDRAP~~~—~ KIDNAPPING INVOLVED 

| MULSTAB----MULTIPLE STABS 

| NOVICMIT---NO VICTIM RELATED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 

NOVIOLCR---NON-VIOLENT CONTEMPORANEOUS CRIME BESIDES 

BURGLARY /VICE 

RECCRIM----RECENT NON-VIOLENT CRIME BY DEFENDANT 

SLODIE-~%—- SLOW DEATH 

TORTURE----VICTIM PHYSICALLY TORTURED 

VPCARBRX---NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLENT PERSONAL 

CRIME, BURGLARY/FIRST DEGREE ARSON 

CONVICT----DEFENDANT HAD PRIOR CONVICTION FOR FELONY OR 

MISDEMEANOR 

MAJAGFCX---NUMBER OF MAJOR AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN CASE 

BADID =—»~~ MISTAKEN IDENTITY CLAIMED 

DEFADMIT---DEFENDANT ADMITTED GUILT AND NO DEFENSE WAS 

ASSERTED 

| DCOERCED---DEFENDANT CLAIMED COERCION USED ON DEFENDANT 

| 

INSANDEF---CLAIM OF INSANITY OR DELUSIONAL COMPULSION 

| MITDFFN----DEFENDANT RETIRED, STUDENT, JUVENILE, HOUSEWIFE 

| PANIC ~~ DEFENDANT PANICKED IN COURSE OF BURGLARY 

NOCONDUC---DEFENDANT HAD IMPAIRED MENTAL CAPACITY 

W/NO CREDIBILITY PROBLEM 

| VEED>»==>r== VICTIM BED-RIDDEN/HANDICAPPED 

| DEADWEP----MALICE/DEADLY WEAPON W/O MITIGATION 

GOODWIT----PRIMARY WITNESS POLICE OFFICER OR CIVILIAN 

| IDWITCOP---ID WITNESS OF COPERPETRATOR NEAR OR AT SCENE 

OF CRIME 

SCHEDULE 7 p. 2 of 2 

 



  

DBADFACT—---DEF. CLAIMED MISTAKE OF FACT 

EVIDINDX----NUMBER OF MAJOR INCRIMINATING EVIDENTIARY 

FACTORS 

IDWITCOP===-1.D. WITNESS OF CO~PERPETRATOR AT OR 

NEAR CRIME SCENE 

DISFIGHT—---HOMICIDE AROSE FROM A DISPUTE OR FIGHT 

STRANGER----VICTIM WAS A STRANGER 

VBELUSKL ~~~ VICTIM BLUE COLLAR OR UNSKILLED 

JOINTKILL---DEF. ONLY AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE KILLING 

CPLESSEN----CO-PERPETRATOR RECEIVED LESSER SENTENCE 

MAJAGFCX----NUMBER OF MAJOR NON-STATUTORY AGGRAVATING 

FACTORS IN THE CASE 

IL.DFBSUUM= rw NUMBER OF STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS IN 

THE CASE 

SMUNDRLG----DEF. ACCOMPLICE AND MINOR PARTICIPANT 

SCHEDULE 8 

 



NOKILL----DEF. NOT TRIGGERMAN 

ILDFBR2-~—~~ B-2 STATUTORY CRIME PRESENT 

ILDFBl==~~ DEF. HAD B-1 RECORD 

NOCLOTH---VICTIM WITHOUT CLOTHES WHEN KILLED 

MULSH rm MULTIPLE HEAD SHOTS 

DRECPRIS--DEF. RELEASED FROM PRISON WITHIN THE LAST YEAR 

DECOERCED-DEF. CLAIMED COERCION 

REVENGE---REVENGE MOTIVE 

DRGHIS----DEF. HAD HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE 

MITMOTVE--DEF. HAD MITIGATING MOTIVE 

INSMOT----INSURANCE MOTIVE 

MAJAGFCX--NUMBER OF MAJOR AGGRIVATING NON-STATUTORY AGG. 

FACTORS IN THE CASE 

DFSTCRIM--DEF. AGE AT TIME OF FIRST FELONY ARREST 

INSANDEF--DEF. INVOKED INSANITY DEFENSE 

PANIC=»—~=~ DEF. PANICKED IN COURSE OF BURGLARY 

EVIDINDX--NUMBER OF MAJOR INCRIMINATING EVIDENTIARY 

FACTORS IN THE CASE 

  
| 

SCHEDULE 9 

    eT OE 4.07 SM SR 5 TY 0 i WR RS SO 457 0 Stes ou



  

BLVICMODr = www FAMILY, LOVER, LIQUOR, BARROOM QUARREL 

VICSTREAN rr m=m=- VICTIM WAS A STRANGER 

SERCONOP mw ve st CASE INVOLVED A SERIOUS CONTEMPORANEOUS 

OFFENSE 

VPC roams smi meme oe oe PRIOR CONVICTION FOR MURDER/ARMED ROBBERY/ 

RAPE/KIDNAPPING/OR OTHER VIOLENT PERSONAL 

CRIME 

PHOV IC tue om mimnwe DEFENDANT KILLED 2 OR MORE PEOPLE 

SCHEDULE 10 

(Procedural Reform Study) 

 



  

| i 
fi 
i 

BLVICMOD----FAMILY, LOVER, LIQUOR, OR BARROOM QUARREL 

VICSTRAN----VICTIM WAS A STRANGER 

SERCONOF----CASE INVOLVED A SERIOUS CONTEMPORANEOUS 

OFFENSE 

VPC rrr imme PRIOR CONVICTION FOR MURDER/ARMED ROBBERY/ 

RAPE /KIDNAPPING/OR OTHER VIOLENT 

PERSONAL CRIME 

PORT === www TORTURE INVOLVED 

UNNEPAIN----UNNECESSARY PAIN INVOLVED 

NOKILI, ~~ mo DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE TRIGGERMAN 

PBOB 7D CASE INVOLVED A SERIOUS CONTEMPORANEOUS 

OFFENSE WITH SPECIAL AGGRAVATING 

CIRCUMSTANCES 

TWOV IC DEFENDANT KILLED 2 OR MORE PEOPLE 

SCHEDULE 11 

(Procedural Reform Study) 

 



SILWITrrm VICTIM KILLED BECAUSE S/HE WAS A WITNESS 

  

STOMP~ =r BRUTAL STOMPING/BEATING 

| THWOV IC ew DEF. KILLED 2 or MORE PEOPLE 

NORILL~—— DEFENDANT NOT THE TRIGGERMAN 

i VICSTRAN---VICTIM WAS A STRANGER 

i MULSH-—-———— MULTIPLE SHOTS 

MULSTAB----MULTIPLE STABS 

MAJAGCRX---NUMBER OF MAJOR NON-STATUTORY AGGRAVATING 

CIRCUMSTANCES 

DEFRSARR---DEFENDANT ACTIVELY RESISTED ARREST 

SERCONOF---A SERIOUS CONTEMPORANEOUS OFFENSE INVOLVED 

MITDEFN----DEFENDANT'S STATUS SYMPATHETIC 

NONVOCOF---DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN NON VIOLENT CRIME 

NOUN rm meme NO VICTIM MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 

: ® PREMEDK----DEFENDANT PLANNED KILLING MORE THAN 5 MINUTES 

5 VICRE Tm VICTIM WHITE COLLAR, PROPRIETOR, PROFESSIONAL, 

; EXECUTIVE 

; CONVICTX---NUMBER OF DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS 

; PBQB6—————— MURDER FOR HIRE 

PBQB7A-———~ VICTIM MUTILATED BEFORE OR AFTER DEATH 

VICYNG---—- VICTIM DEFENSELESS/YOUTH 

ESCAPE-———- KILLING OCCURRED IN ESCAPE FROM JAIL/PRISON 

W40-——————- NUMBER OF COPERPETRATORS 

SCHEDULE 12 

i (Procedural Reform Study) 

Pd SE JR RS TNC 28 ET J 0 PR CG RE Tc A MARRS FR     



      

W15D----NUMBER OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLENT 

PERSONAL CRIME OTHER THAN RAPE, ARMED 

ROBBERY, KIDNAP OR MURDER 

PBQB3---GREAT RISK TO OTHERS, STATUTORY FACTOR 

PBQB4---MONETARY MOTIVE, STATUTORY FACTOR 

FEMVIC--VICTIM WAS FEMALE 

KIDNAP--KIDNAP INVOLVED 

RAPE----RAPE INVOLVED 

MAJAGCRX-NUMBER OF NON-STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS 

VICPFIR--VICTIM POLICE OR FIRE 

MULSTAB--MULTIPLE STABS 

MULSH----MULTIPLE SHOTS 

STMIT6---DEFENDANT ACCOMPLICE OR UNDERLING 

TWOVIC---DEFENDANT KILLED 2 OR MORE PEOPLE 

SCHEDULE 13 

(Procedural Reform Study) 

3 TOR A Pc a



T
E
 

E
o
 

i
e
 

ui
t 

p
e
 

Fk
 

"DDRG 
ACCD 

DEF ENSE 
DEF REM 
DFEAR 

DFSUR24 
D JUST 
DNOINT 
DRGHIS 
DRUGDIS 
DSUR 
DUNDERL G 
FAMLVDIS 
JEALQOS 
MANSLAUG 
MINOR 

NOCONTOF 
NOCONV IC 
NOF EL 
NOK ILL 
NCRECCRD 
NOSERCR | 
NOV PC 

OTHMIT 
OTHVMIT 
SIMIT 
STMIT1O0 
STM]T?2 
STMIT3 
ST [T4 
STMITS 
STMITS® 
STMIT7 
STMITS8 
STMITS 
VACT 
vBDBLD 
VERATK 

VICCL OSE 
VIN JD 
VPROV 

VRAGE —— 
MINRCLCO 

ACC IDENT DEFENSE = 
DEF ENDANT HEAVILY INTOXICATED 
VICTIM ASSAULT 
DEFENDANT SHOWED REMORSE 
VICTIM ARDUSE FEAR 

ee ————————————————— 

DEF .GAVE UP WITHIN 24 HRS. 
DEFENDANT WITH MORAL JUSTIFICATION 
NO INTENT TO KILL 
DEF. HAD HISTORY OF DRUG DR ALCO. ASUSE" 
DISPUTE INFLUENCED BY DRG/ALCIHOL 
DEFe SURRENDERED TO AUTHORITIES 
DEFWAS UNDERL ING [N MURDER 
FAMILY OR LOVER DISPUTE 
JEALOUSY MOTIVE 
MANSLAUGHTER DEFENSE 
DEFENDANT 16 OR YOUNGER 
ONE CR MORE MIT. CIRCUMSTANCES 
DEF. REMORSE OR GAVE UP (COUNT) 
MIT. CIR. CONCERN DEF. (COUNT) 
MITe CIR. CONCERN VICe. (COUNT) 
MIT [GAT ING DEFENSE 
DEF. STATUS SYMPOTHETIC 
A MITIGATING MOTIVE 
NO CONTEMP. OFFENSE 
NGO PRIDR CONVICTIONS 
NC FELONY CONVICTIONS 
DEF. NOT THE TRIGGER MAN 
NO CRIMINAL CONVICT [ONS 
NC CONVICTION FOR A SERIOUS CRIME 
NO CONVICTION FOR A SERIQUS VIOL FELINY 
OTHER MIT. CIR. 
VICTIM MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 
DEF LACK CAP TO APP CRIMINAL OF COND 
DEF. WAS PROVOXED 
DEF + ACTED UNDER DOMIN. OF ANOTHER 
DEF. < 16 YRS, OF AGE 
DEF, NO S1G.CRIM, ACTIVITYIND FELON.) 
DEF. UNDER MENTAL OR EMOT. DISTURS, 
DEF. ACCOMPLICE ACT WAS REL. MINDR 
VICTIM PARTICIPANT/CONS. TO DEF .ACT 
DEF. BELIEVED ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED 
DEF. CODPERATED WITH AUTHORITIES 
VICTIM AROUSED HATE 
BAD BLOOD 
VICTIM VERE2AL ATTACK 
VICTIM FRIEND, RELes INT. ACQUAINTANCE 
VICTIM ATTACK 3RD PERSON 
VICTIM PROVOKED DEFENDANT : 
VICes AROUSED DEF. RAGE JUST PRI.TO XItU 
COPERP INVOL £& DEF MINOR ROLE CONT. OF | 

SCHEDULE 14 

(Procedural Reform Study)  



    

AGGNOT 
ALSTAGCR 
AMBUSH 
ARMROB 
BEAT 
BLCOOY 
BUR GAKS 
CONVICTX 
COPERP 
DORG 
DEFENSE 
DEFESC 
DEFPLEA 
DEF REM 
CeEFRS ARR 
DEL B7EX 
DEPR IVE 
DFE AR 
DFSUR24 
DIusSY 

OKILLER 

CLEADMF 

DNOINT 

DPODLSEC 

DRGHIS 
DROWN 

DRUGDIS 
DSUR 
DUNDERL.G 
ESCAPE 
EXECK 
FAMLVDIS 

Fel kEC 
FEMV IC 
FRAC 
HATE 
HOST 
INJURE 

INSANE 
INSMUT 

JEALCS 
KIDNAP 

KILLHIRE 
KNIFE 

MAJAGCIR 

MAJAGCR X | 
MANSL AUG 
MUH_DEFN 
MINAGCR X 
MINAGGCR 
MINGR 

SERCONCF 
SERCRIMX 
SERVFEL 
SEXMT 
SHOTS 
SILWIT 
SLASHTH 
ISIMIT] 
STMIT10 
STMIT2 
STMITR 
STMITS 
STMITS 

STMIT6 
STMIT 7? 
ST¥]TS8 
STMITGQ 

SEDER ERB A SR ET RE QO I SINC PE TM RR = IE 

| —FIVE-OR MORE PEOPLE-AT-RISK 

  

AGGRAVATED MOTIVE 
#OF STAT. AGGe CIR. =~ ALL JURISDICTIONS 
DEFENDANT LYING [IN WAIT 

~ ARMED ROBBERY [INVOLVED —— ——— —— 
KILLED BY BEATING 
BLOODY MURDER (NVOLVED 
BURGLARY OR FIRST DEGREE ARSON INV. 
# OF PRIOR DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS - 
CO-PERPETRATORS INVOLVED 
DEFENDANT HEAVILY (NTOXICATED 
VICTIM ASSAULT 
DEFENDANT ON ESCAPE 
DEFENDANT EXPRESSED PLEASURE 
DEFENDANT SHOWED REMORSE 
DEF. ACTIVELY RESISTED ARREST 
# OF GA. DEATH EL IG FAC BY EXP 
KILL BY I[MPRISON/STARVE (DEPRIVATION) 
VICTIM ARQUSE FEAR 
DEF.GAVE UP WITHIN 24% HRS. 
DEFENDANT WITH MORAL JUSTIFICATION 
DEF. DIRECTLY PARTICIPATED IN KILL ING 
DEFENDANT LEADER MURDER/ CCN. FEL « 
NO INTENT TO KILL 
DEFENDANT POL ICE/ SEC. 
NEF. HAD HISTORY [OF DRUG OR ALCO. ABUSE 
VICTIM DROWNED 
DISPUTE INFLUENCED BY DRG/ALCOHOL 
DEF. SURRENDERED TO AUTHORITIES 

{ DEF WAS UNMDEPRL ING IN MURDER 

I KILL OCCUGRED IN ESCAPE EPROM JAIL/ZORISON 
EXECUTION STYLE MURDER 
FAMILY OR LOVER DISPUTE 

| DEF. HAD A FELONY RECORD 
VICTIM WAS A FEMALE 
KILLED BY FRACTURES 
HATE /JREVENGE MOTIVE 
VIiICTivd A ROSTAGE 

DEFENDANT [NJURED 1+ PEPSON 
INSANITY DEFENSE 
{NSURANCE MOTIVE 
JEALOUSY MDT {VE 

VICTIM WAS KIDNAPPED 
CASE INVOLVED HIRED KILLER 
KNIFE KILLING 
ONE OR MORE MAJOR AGG. CIR, 

 #¥0F MAJOR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES 
MANSL AUGHTER DEFENSE 
DEFENDANT IN MI{L{ TARY 
#0F MINOR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES 
ONE OR MORE MINOR AGGe CIRCUMSTANCES 
DEFENDANT 16 OR YOUNGER 

RACE HATRED MQT{IvE 
IMMEDIATE RAGE MOTIVE RAPE [INVOLVED 

  

  DEF. CREATED GREAT RISK IN PU A SERIOUS CONT. OFFENSE INV unn CACE 2.38 SER. PRIOR CRIMES — DEF RECORD - SERIOUS = ete 
SRI VIOLENT FELONY 
DEFENDANT FIRED 5 OR MORE SHOTS VICTIM KILLED BECAUSE A WITNESS SY CY IMS THROAT WAS SLASHED mans DEF LACK CAP TO APP CRIMINAL OF COND DET wat PROVOKED 

. TED UNDER DOMIN. OF A Des. < 16 YRS DF AGE oF. ANOTHER rigs e NO SIG.CRIMe ACTIVITY(NDO FE . DEF. UNDER MENTAL OR EMOT. WELL, ) DEFe ACCOMIL ICE ACY WAS REL o MI NOR VICTIM PARTICIPANT/CONS. TO DEF LACT DEF. BELIEVED ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED DEF. COOPERATED WI TH AUTHORITIES 

  

SCHEDULE 1& 

(Procedural Reform Study) 

I UR lt aI A TS CO a 1 (I a ni



    

—AGGEBATTYT — TAGGRAVATED BATTERY INVOLVED 

ACCIDENT DEFENSE 
DEF COMM ADD CRIME AFTER KILL 
DEFENDANT AGE AT TIME OF CRIME 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

AGGCIRX FAGGRAVAT ING FACTORS 
FEL_2VMD RECORD/FEL OR 2+ VIOL MISD 

AGG HME TKL _ ONE OR MORE AGG. METHOD OF KILL ING 

MITCIR ONE OR MORE MIT. CIRCUMSTANCES 
MITCIRX # OF MIT, CIR. 
MITCIR1L DEF REMORSE OR GAVE UP (COUNT) 
MIFCER2— MIT. CIR. CONCERN DEF + (COUNTY 
MITCIR3 MIT. CIR. CONCERN VICe (COUNT) 

MITDEF MITIGATING DEFENSE 
MITMOT A MITIGATING MOTIVE 

MUL SH — MULTIPLE SHOTS NN TTY TTT 

MUL STAB MULTIPLE STABS 
MUT IL I MUTILATION INVOLVED 

CAGGCIR NO AGGRAVAT ING CIRCUMSTANCES . 

NOCONTOFRT ND CONJTEMP. DFFENSE  —. T 

NOCONVIC NO PRIOR CONVICTIONS 
NGF EL NC FELONY CONVICTIONS 

NOK ILL DEF. NOT THE TRIGGER MAN 
NCNPC RM MOTIVE FACL. NON-PROP. RELATED CRIME 77 
NON VCOF DEF. ENGAGED {(N NON-VIO-CRIME 

NOKECORD NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS 

NCSERCRI NO CONVICTION FDR A SERIDUS CRIME 

NGV MC NO VICTIM MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 
NOV PC NO CONVICTION FOR A SERIOUS VID FELONY 
NOP ROV VICTIM OFFERED NO PROVOCATION 
CBTMON MONEY MOTIVE 

OLDER - DEFENDANT 53+ fs CR EE ke Sa rR pp 

OL OviC VICTIM WAS 6&5 YCARS OR MORE 

ONE SHOT DEFENDANTY FIRED DONE SHOY 

OTHMIT OTHER MIT, CIR. 

OTHVMIT VICTIM MIT GAT ING CIRCUMSTANCES re 

PEQB1 PRIOR RECORD OF MURJ./ARM ROBs RAPE LKID. 

PBQaBI1O KIfL TO AVOID OR SYOP ARRESY 

PBG32 CONT. MUR. ROR « RAPE KID es» BURG Ges ARSON 

PagSg MURDER FCR MONEY/VALUE ~~ —t 
P BQ B6 MURDER FOR HIRE 

PB8QB7 MURDER WANTONs VILE, TORT.+DEPRA. 
PBQB7A VICTIM MUTILATED BEFORE/AFTER DEATH’ 

PBQB7B —  UNNESSARY MULTIPLE WOUNDING(TORT.) 

PBGB7D RAPE ETC/S IU 4+ OR 3S/HELDPLESS» EXer PLEAD, 
PBQB7E SEX PERVERSION INVOLVED 

PBQBT7F BEAT STRANGs DRUOWNSPOISON: TORTURE 

PQs -—— VICTIM POLICE, CORRECTIONS, FIREMAN 

PBQB9 DEFENDANT PRISAONER/ZESCAPEE 

PBQDELX # GECRGIA DEATH ELIG. FACTORS IN CASE 

PERVRK SEXUAL PERVERSION INVOLVED 
POISON" VICTIM XILLED WITH POISON ] 

PRECIPEV ONE OR MORE PRECIP. EVTS. ” ey" 

PRECIPX NUMBER (OF PRECPe CIR, 

PREESC PREVENT ARREST MOTIVE 
-PREMED —— DEF PLAN MURDER OR CONT OFF > 5 MIN. 

P RE ME DF DEFe PLANNED CONT ee OFFe > 5 MINUTES 
PRE ME DK DEFe« PLANNED KILLING > 5 MINUTES 
PRIFEL id PRICR FELONY CONVICTIONS REPORTED 

SCHEDULE 15 

(Procedural Reform Study)



I 
Ii 
ie 
Jet 

i: 

  

STOMP 
STKANG 
SVPCR 
SVPCRX 
SUMW®L1S 
TORY 
TO VIC 

TaOVICAL 
UNNEC 

UNNEPAIN 
DIRRGCLCO 
YACT 
VB8DBLO 

B1 

[6
1N
8)
) 

@)
 

N
a
u
 

m
m
 
T
o
n
 

L
a
 

SY
 

p
e
 

LY
 

[W
A 

#4]
 

m 

W15F}] 
YNGADLT — 
YNGVIC 
YNUDDIS 
HISTD 
LSTATDEF OW SES STATUS DEF 
YNGADLT 
DFEM 

R
o
 

J 
Mo
we
 
e
w
 

Wo
w 

R
W
 

BRUTAL STOMPING/3EAT ING 
KILLED BY STRANGULATION 1+PRIOR CONVIMURDER,ARM=-RNB,RAPE,K[DONAD #PR IOR CONVIMURDER, ARM-ROB,RAPE ,K[DNAD NUMBER OF SER FEL £ vbc TORTURE [INVOLVED : TWO OR MORE VICTIMS BY DEF.OR BY cops=ap, THO OR MORE VIC TOTAL BY DEF AND COPERP KILLING WAS NOT NECESSARY = UNNECESSARY PAIN [NVOL VED COPERP® [NVOL £ DEF DARTIC IN CONT. OFF VICTIM ARQUSED HATE 
BAD B3L00D 
VICTIM VERRAL ATTACK 
VICTIM A FUGITIVE 
VICTIM BOUND AND/OR GAGGED 
VICTIM FRIEND, REL .4 INT. ACQUAINTANCE VICTIM PREGNANT, DISABLED, HELPLESS VICTIM'S RESIDENCE BREAK-IN 
VICTIM WAS A STRANGER 
VICTIM DEFENSELESS/YOUTH 
VICTIM ATTACK 32RD PERSON 
2 OF V1CTs AGS CIR 
PRIOR CONV MUR/ARMROB/RAPE/KID/E OTH vec 1+ PRIOR CONVICS:VIOULENT PERSON CRIMES # PRIOR CONVICS:-VIOLENT DERSON CRIMES VICTIM PROVOKED DEFENDANT 
VIC. ARQDUSED DEF. RAGS JUST POI.TO Ki ¢ RR PRICR CONVICTIONS FOR MURDER (DOC) 

PRIOR CONVe MURS{(DOCEPBQ)} 
PRICR CONV, FOR ARMRORB(DOC) 
PRIOR CONV. ARMROB(DOCEPBQ) 
PRIOR-CONV + RAPE KIDNAP{DOC}y— 
PRIOR CONV. RAPE,KIDNAP{DOCEPBQ) 
PRIOR CONV, OTHER VIOLe. PER. CR.{DOC) 
PRIOR CONV. BURGLARY & ARSONI(DOCEPBQ) 
"CONVICT IONST ARSON OR BURGLARY {DOCH — 
PRICR CONV. V PC(DOCEPBQ) ; 
CONVICTIONS: OTHER FE(ONIES, MISDEM. 

# PRI CONV. FOR OTH FEL & MID (DDCEPBRQ) 
DEPENDANT AGED 7 THRU 28 rrr 
VICTIM 12 OR YOUNGER 
VICTIM NUDE 
HIGH STATUS DEF WH-COLLsPROPR,PROT,EXEC 

DEFENDANT AGED 17 THRU 25 
FEMALE DEFENDANT 

SCHEDULE 15 

(Procedural Reform Study) 

  

a at i MAAS 35 7. 

 



  

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BUTTS COUNTY 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

i i ! ~ 

WARREN McCLESKEY, 

Petitioner 

vs. Civil Action No. #4909 

WALTER ZANT, Warden, 

Georgia Diagnostic and 

classification Center, 

HABEAS CORPUS 

Respondent 

» 
* 

. 
~ 

» 
® 

° 
LJ 

hd 
» 

- 
» 

Rod 

* 

- 
- 

°* 
a 

® 
. 

- 
» 

» 
* 

Ld 
- 

sa wet Lad 4 

The devosition of KELLY PITE, pevonent, taken 

at the instance of the petitioner; all formalities, 

including the reading and taming of the deposition, 

waived before Edward H. Lieberman, Certified Court 

Reporter, at 959 East Confederate Avenue, Atlanta, 

Pulton County, Georgia, commencing at approximately 

10:20 a.m., February 20, 1991. 

      CorBIN & LIEBERMAN 

CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

SUITE 828, 1293 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E. 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 

(404) 892-3699 

  

        
   



  

  

24 

25   

  

PROCEEDINGS 

RELLY FITE 

was called as a witness and, having been first duly 

sworn, was examined and deposed as follows: 

F4 
RS MR, STROUP: All right. This is the deposition © 

Kelly Fite, taken by the petitioner by agreement of the 

parties, for use in lieu of Mr. Fite's testimony at the 

hearing. Mr. Pite has waived signature, and you have sworn 

the witness, so let me begin. 

- DIRECT EXAMINATION 

BY MR, STROUP 

0 Would vou for: the record state vour full name, 

please? 

A, Kelly Fite. 

0 And where are you employed? 

A. T work for the State Crime Laboratory, Department 

of Torensic Science. 

0. Okay. How long have you worked for the State Crime 

Lab? 

A. Almost thirteen years. 

Q all right. Did you have occasion to testify at the 

trial of Warren McClesky related £o the shooting of Atlanta 

police officer Frank Schlatt? 

A Yea, I A4id. 

  

Bg 
Fe

 
se
 

ER 
DB
 

    

    

 



  

  

1 0. Was your testimony in that trial based on your 

2 |inspection of two bullets or bullet fragments that were 

3 | recovered from the scene of the shooting?   4 A, That's correct. 

5 Q. And wags vour testimony that based on vour inspection 

6 |of bullets or bullet fragments that the murder weapon was 

A
l
e
 

AT
 

x 
rt
 

wa
y C
E
 

SE
I 

© 
| 
A
S
 

T
r
 

£7 
A 

SI
R 

STIR 
SP
R 

5 
TAD 

1 
SE 

  

7 | probably a .38 Rossi? 
4 

8 A That's correct. ; 

9 1) Whan you testified that it was probably a .38 Rossi, : 

10 | what did vou mean by probably? : 

11 A, Vell, based on the land and groove structure of the i 

12 | bullet, six grooves with a right-hand twist, the groove width ] 

13 | being somewhere around .1 inch, the diameter of the groove : 

14 | and the bullet and the slippage pattern on the bullet as it 

15 | passed through the bore of this weapon indicated to me-- 

16 | these measurements plus the slippage indicated to me that h 

17 | the weapon was probably a Rossi. This is also based on my : 
i 

18 | accumulation of data over the past several vears, plus a 2 

19 | check with the PBI record file in Washington. 

20 Q Nkav. But when vou say probably, can you put that | 

21 | in terms of some percentage chances? Over 50 per cent? 

22 A T would say between 51 and 99. 

23 0 all richt. Somewhere over 51 per cent is what you're 

24 | talking about 

25 A Yas Sle           
 



    24 

25 

  

  

¢ All right. Is it also possible that the murder 

weapon was some weapon other than a .38 Rossi? 

A That's possible, ves. 

Q Okay. And then let me ask you just about your 

general practice in talking with defense counsel who would be 

interested in talking to vou about your anticipated testimony 

prior to that testimony. Is it vour usual practice to talk 

with defense counsel who call vou up and want to discuss the 

cage with vou and vour testimony? 

A Yes. I usually ask then to get the ckay {rom the 

D.A., but IT have no objections to ever talking to a defense 

attorney. 

MR, STROUP: All right. That's all I have, Nick. 

CROSS ~-BEMIINATION 

BY MR. DUMICH: 

0 vou indicated that there was some possibility that 

the murder weapon may have been something other than a-- 

what ig it?-- .38 Rossi special? Is that how it's termed? 

A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 

0. Tf you can recall, based on your examination of 

+hose bullets, could you put any kind of percentage on what 

vou believe the possibility might have been it was something 

other than a .38 Rossi? 

A. Well, it would be less than 50 per cent. There are 

a counle more guns that have the same groove gtructure as a 

    

  

 



  

in
 

v 

  
  

[4
] 

~J
d 

  

  

Rossi, one being a Taurus zovolver. The grooves are identical 

but tha slippage pattern in all I've ever examined is a 

iittle bit different from a Rossi, and that's why I say it 

was probably a Rossi rather than a Taurus, but I'd put a 

Taurus in the realm of a possibility. 

Q | Did you have any reason--~ well, I'll withdraw that. 

Did vou use a computer in your analysis of these bullets? Do 

vou recall using a computer on that? 

A. It's standard procedurs to run the results through 

my information bank, and also on the computer through the 

PBI's information bank. I don't know whether I did it in this 

case. I probably did. 

0 Okav. 2ased on the information that vou had in 

ragard to these two bullet fragments, if the defense counsel 

would have come out and spoken to vou, could you have told 

him anvthing different than that these bullets were probably 

both fired from the same Rogsil? 

A. I wouldn't think so. I usually testify what my 

roport says. I try to. 

0 I don't have anvthing else. 

MR. STROUP: That's all I have. 

BY MR. DUMICH: 

0. Can I cover just one other thing. Okav. You have 

indicated that the percentage that it was not a Rossi would 

ha somewhere less than 59 per cent. Within that range of zero    



  

  

1 to 50 per cent, can you narrow that down any hetter, as far 

2 | as would it be closer to zero or would it be closer to 30 

3 | per cent, based on the information that you had? 

4 A. Well, I'd state it was probahly a Rossi, and that 
we 

5 | leaves another weapon as being a possibility only. I don't 

6 | think I can narrow it down anymore than that. 

7 0. Okay. Do you know of any other weapons that have ; 

8 | six grooves with a right-hand twist that have .1125 inches 

> 9 | that you testified at trial? 

10 A, That's the groove width of the bullet. 

1 Q no vou know of any other weapons that have that 

: 12 | ¥ind of configuration? 

gz 13 3 Yes. Some Tauruses are similar to this; some early 

14 | charter Arms are similar to this. 

15 MR. DUMICH: Okay. That's all I have. 

16 MR. STROUP: I don't have anything further. 

17 [Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was concluded.] ! 

Hf | 18 
| 

3g ~o00~ 

20 

2 cRTIPICATY 

Zia 0RT ITA ) 

23 | FULTON COUNTY ) 

24 T, Bdward H. Lieberman, Certified Court Reporter, 

do hereby certify that KELLY FITE, Deponent, was by me first     
    
 



  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

          
  

  

  

    
    
  

  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

Offreer  Rre/dte ODE Fp. Oiae/ihe  Drscesflion 28 Cese "Ul 41 5 505 fais oo Sr 
byle LW- Dye wm) |9-60 Groege Geny 844/35 | Shor sviisTignling Obapsshe ohalinbmpuca Hevrpe Asp 

vps £Mundy gn) 45:8) | Joe Lovis oss | 8m/fos Ry a Ly Lorne nv argisa ee] by Arr Yoel 

2. MTA Jz. toplog et 12:47 | Trsse £L- Towes Bhs fey Shor pein 2 Jospresous FZelss0 4 DEeRTH Suis 

3 0 gery wopfs3 220 (neo Brock | 8fon/rz | Shor By Ment) Doon ar Bus Symon fences yi 5 
Wy Koylog wy fog £z3-7/ a, ig Shoz avg beniin by bomslors 7 wl : Denrrt Seaibinca 

Te | hs, Creene winfot 3-77 V2 Mupptpen ~ Blice Ul ele ALP 

5 8 exy Bante) os 331 4-19-73 — | Zags aeons Crs sora oa fol jc ep Pests hd 

lopence or alyfet e728 Fonts ont Ls ZV eshglinsi Asrombonce oN Howe ait ng i te 

enzy Jones Ghifes (2/273 we 7 as Shs 7 Z Lorgtary, pisces aw EYSThely a Si  Z£9ony lik Uhr fog 755 otal 09/18 Sor 4 fore, rig 4 obbeey i Bigs Cults Erte Low Fouce 
aM Gy Y unt Jorg gor (AL vp pan) 8 bs Shs Goris AES RLY ATE 07 of 

BL om 2 wily J6l 2287 ris Phson Wlyfen 728 Pod ot A - | 4) Zi 5 Sew 

oer lon (wiwfar iy, En LL by Arr, chums Bhluy Somer: | ppronst ble 
pRLY Aelesn wn )29 23-27 cw. ploniin a/miA Sor y Sospecr while INYESDGRTINY fos: Arson.| KN ed by Rhee 

Ree Set fo why) 31 [7/379 Wess Nt fostiy Bly/22 Shor By Yerp, corse pr ©obbug sn Roqauss| 65,175 = Perat Jentowar 
Yared Tolpssw 2/3/31 242-85 irs “i ~ Shor Ly ep ns obey OTE A/F 

-Riehnnpioy 2/M/33 2:94) ons Mille a Ther INVEST) 9RT ING JC Lb Jospeeds: 2 Dus Fos, Jo) 
              

i 

| 

 



  

Punishment in Georgia: Murder =~ 7 
Gi 

Furman Supplemental Questionnaire bos 2x.3 

Capit 
Pre- 
  

  

  

Defendant's Name N/A ern he Cresky 
  

I. The Defendant (Dept. of Corrections and trial transcript) 

A. General and Screening variables 

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

  

  

Card #1 
Variable # Variable Name Column # 

V1 Case Number 1-3 loll 

V2 Defendant's Inmate # : 3.11" D-o02a=E 

V3A County in which sentence was imposed (county code) 12-14 CO 

vaa Current offense (code 1101 for murder) 27-30 LO] 

Blank : : : 31.73 

La 79-80 
Lard #2 tase Number 1-3 Lb 

B. Physical Characteristics 

V1 Race and sex of the defendant 10 Z 

Male Female 

White 1 6 
Negro 2 7 
Indian 3 8 
Spanish Ancestry 4 8 
Other 5 0 

V12 Birthdate 12-17. 82) 17 [47 
[format:  MMDDYY] / / 

C. Residency 

V15 Place of birth of the defendant 23.25". 205 

000. Not reported 107. Iowa 212. Alabama 312. California 
NORTHEAST 108. Missouri 213. Mississippi 373. Hawaii 

001. Maine 109. North Dakota 214. Arkansas 

002. New Hampshire 110. South Dakota 218. Louisiana 888. Foreign 
003. Vermont 111. Nebraska 216. Oklahoma Country 
004. Massachusetts Y12. ¥ansas 217. Texas C93. Federal 
035. Rhode Island SOUTH WEST 
006. Connecticut 201. Delaware 301. Alaska 
037. New York 202. Maryland 302. Montana 

008. New Jersey 203. Dist. of Columbia, 303..1daho 
008. Pennsylvania 204. Virginia 304. Hyoming 

MORTH CENTRAL 205. West Virginia 305. Colorado 
10%. Bhio 206. North Carolina 306. New Mexico 
102. Indiana 207. South Carolina 307. Arizona 
1483. 111 incis 208. Georgia 308. Utah 
104. Michigan 209. Florida 30S. Nevada 
105. Wisconsin 210. Kentucky 310. Washington 

106. Minnesota 211. Tennessee 311. Oregon 

 



  

  

V16 

V17 

V25 

Ve7 

y2¢9 

v3 

Residence of the defendant 27-29 

(use standard Ga. county code and 999 = Qut of State) 

Personal Characteristics 

1. Family Background 

Family behavior pattern & #1 3] 

1 = Criminality 7 = Grossly permissive 
2 = Alcoholism 8 = Frequent absence of 
3 = Drug Abuse father figure 
4 = Domineering 8 = Frequent absence of 
5 = Migrant mother figure 
6 = Inflict beatings or 0 = Not reported 

whippings : 

Guardian status to age 16 42 

0 = Not reported 3 = Father with mother 
1 = Orphanage as head 
2 = Father (only) 4 = Mother (only) head 

head 5 = Mother with father as head 

Environment background of the 
defendant to age 16 44 

1 = Rural (farm) 2. = S.M.SA, {over 100,080) 
2 =“Rural (non-farm) 4 = Urban {over 15,000) 

(unincorperated 5 = Small town {under 15,000) 
community or area) C = Not reported 

2. Mental Condition 

Defendant's psychiatric condition 46 

0 = Not reported 3 = Defect with major 
1 = No limitations limitations 
2 = Defect with no 4 = Very major defect with 

major limitations major limitations 

Defendant's 1.Q. score 48-50 
[actual score] 

3. Education 

Educational level of the defendant -- 54-55 
years of schooling completed 

0 = Not reported 16 = Bachelor Degree 
1-12 = As indicated 17 = Master Degree 
13 = 1 year college Sea Ph.D, 
14 = 2 years college 19 = Law degree 
15 = 3 years college 20 = Medical school 

99 = None 

4. Employment Record 

Occupational skill #1 61-63 
Fsee codebook] 

  

bo 
  

O 

  

O 

  

Oy
 

  

  

  

Zz 
  

  

 



  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

V33 Employment status prior to apprehension 69 OC 

C = Not reported £ = Unemployed (long time) 
1] = Employed full time (cver 6 mos.) 
2 = Employed part time 5 = Never worked (nonstudent, capable) 
3 = Unemployed (recently) 6 = Student 

(6 mo. or less) 7 = Incapable of work 

V34 Defendant's SES status Zi 2 

1 = Welfare 4 = Middle class 
2 = Occasionally employed 5 = Other or unknown 
3 = Minimum standard of living 

(3,000 or equivalent income) 

5. Dependents 

V35 Defendant's marital status 73 2 

0 = Not reported £ = Divorced 
1 = Single 5 = Widowed 
2 = Married 6 = Common law marriage 
3 = Separated 

V37 With whom was defendant living prior to 77 AL 
apprehension? 

C = Not ascertained 5 = Children alone 
1 = Alone 6 = Friends 
2 = Parental family 7 = Non-marital heterosexual 
3 = Spouse end children relationship 
4 = Spouse alone 8 = Homosexual relationship 

Q = Other 

Card #2 79-80 
Card #3 Case Number 1-3 lt 

V38 Military record of the defendant 4 oh 

0 = Not reported 4 = Bad conduct 
1 = Honorable 5 = Dishonorable 
2 = Undesirable 6 = In service 

Vai Branch of service 15 9 

0 = Not reported 5 = Coast Guard 
1 = Air Force 6 = Other 
2 = Army 8 = No military service 
3 = Navy 
4 = Marines 

Card #4 Card #3 79-80 

Case Number 1.2 Lil 
  

 



  

—
 
0
 

(G
N)

 

V85B 

Ves 

Ves 

—
 

—
 

n
N
 

—
 

Other 

Organized crime association 

No known connection 2 = Subordinate capacity 
Suspected association 3 = High level capacity 

lias defendant an escapee at the 
time of the offense? 

Not ascertained 

Yes 

NG 

Was defendant a prisoner at the time 
f the offense? 

Not ascertained 

Yes 

No 

Date of the offense [format: MMDDYY] 
lL riGt fuiD = 520 OUGMad SA, 

Date of arrest [format: MMDDYY] 

  

11 

65 

  

  

  

  

  

 



    } 

; $54 
(ase fF | ©   

  

/ 
L— 

GEORGIA PAROLE BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE esp. on 2- 
November, 1980 

vrs ECEIVEN JUL 2 7 0a 
Offender's Name: A brrvm V// Udy” 

1 Case Number: 

    

  

  

  

2 Date of Offense MM/DD/YY Hs ]/3 Z£& 
4 

  

  

  

  

  

  

3 Defendant's Plea to Murder Indictment 

Guilty = 1 Not Guilty = 2 

Other = 3 Unknown = 10) 2 

10 

4 Date of Trial on Guilt MM/DD/YY LO 4 192. ZL 

oi in : gh ; 11-16 (6) 
Not Applicable = 0000092 (e.g., guilty plea) 

Unknown = 000000 

3 Sentence » 

1ife w= 3 Other (specify) = 3 

Death = 2 Unknown = 0 rs 

317 

6 Status of principal defense counsel 

Retained = 1 

Appointed = 2 

Unknown = 0 / 

18 

7 Did prosecution waive or fail to seek the death penalty? 

Yes = 1 

No = 2 

Tn] 
- 

Unknown = 0 = 

is 

8 Dié& the judge otherwise take the penalty issue fram the jurors 

or dismiss them before the penalty trial? 

Yas = 1 Wo = 7 Unknown = 0 2 
20 

9 Was there a penalty trial? 

Yes = 1 Noi=:2 Unknown = 0   

 



  

}
-
 

[NS
] 

X: 

  

N)
 

Did the defendant arpeal his/her conviction or sentence? 

Yes =..1 No = 2 Unknown = oO / 

22 

Outcome of the appeal: 

Death cases {for variable 5 = 2)   

Conviction and death sentence affirmed = 1 

  

  

  

Conviction sustained; death penalty reduced to life = 2 

Conviction reversed; death sentence not passed on = 3 

Life cases (for variable 5 = 1) 

Conviction and life sentence affirmed = 4 

Conviction only reversed = 5 

Conviction affirmed; life sentence modified = 6 

Other (specify) _ 

Not applicable because no appeal = 9 » 

Unknown = 0 

23 

Date of Supreme Court Decision MV/DD/YY 

Notapplicable because no appeal = 000009 37 124 (50 
id 

24-29 (6) 

Is this case in the Supreme Court Study? 

Yes = 1 No = 2 Unknown = 0 

30 

 



  

  

  

  

  

Offender's Name I riin 12L Clack, 

B. Counsel and Indictment Information (not to be punched) 

Primary Defense Counsel's Name and Address: (ai 

Lr Mil Lon Tukner, Ji 4p 4-657 - ¢ 448 

Cid Pet] Benk bldy. Serre (doo 

SE IR rICTTA ZZ, A, LL), 7]. SD 322 

  

  

  

Names of Secondary Defense Counsel (without address) 

  

  

  

DA and Assistant DA's Names (without address) 

Lowi Clndons od 

Russel & Trlr 

  

  

  

Murder Indictment &¢ A - 4 O02 

County of Trial 720 “Gm 

  

  

Date of Trial (same as Variable #4) JO -J2 FL 
  

 



    

  

  

-3B- yo - 

  

[4
 ’ 

F
O
T
—
—
 
S
E
 

  

  

} | Vd = 

OFFENDER'S NAME Lprvon wt : CASE NUMBER i 

r. VICTIM LIST (not ‘to be punched) 

1. Names of Victim(s) (if more than 3 victims, enter names & other 

information on the bottom of this page). 

Victim % Name te of th &§ County of Death 
(Enter only if race 1s unknown) 

    

  

  

a. 1_Trank Cohladt / 4 

Lo Z / 4 

c. 3 / 7 
  

2. Race of Victim(s) 

  

Victim 

a. #1 = Vnite / Black Nat/Am Spanish Other Ur 

(1) (2) (3) Speaking (4) (5) (0) 

b. #2 - White Black Nat/Am Spanish Other Unlnown 

(1) (2) (3) Speaking (4) (5) (0) . 

C.. £3 ~ White Black Nat/Am Spanish Other Unknown 

(1) (2) (3) Speaking(4) (5) (0) 

 



       8 

» 

: 3 

CFFENDER'S CRIMINAL RECCRD BEFORE THE EVENT IN WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED 

When the questionnaire is camplete in the Supreme Court: a) enter data from Department 
of Corrections tare and the trial record in colum (1), and b) enter 29 in colum (2). 

14 

15 

16 

(1) (2) 

Parole Board Arrests and Convic- 
Investigation tions frcem Inmate 

Self Report that are 

in addition © (1) 

Number of prior arrests 

Code: 00 = None & no additional for 

colum (2) pri oO 

Unknown 

    

-% 

Prior convictions (enter actual #) or 

Il 00 None & no additional for colum (2) 

-1 = Unknown 

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

A. Murder (1101) 0 oO 6 O 

33-34 (2) 49-50a (2) 

B. Armed Robbery (1902) bp o>) 
35-36 (2) 51-52" (2) 

C. Rape (2001) & Kidnapping (1311) 00 oS 

37m38 42) 53=54 2) 

D. Burglary (1601) & Arson (1401) o oO 
395-40 (2) 55-56 {23 

E. Other Violent Personal Crimes 30 ec? © 
41-42 (2) 57-58 (2) 

I. Other Felonies and Misdemeanors — | Oo 
43-44 (2) 59-60. (2) 

Prior incarceration in Georgia LL 

Yes = 1 No = 2 Unknown = 0 61 

Total Jail and Prison Sentences (enter actual #) —d Pie or 
45-46 (2) 8-53 (2) 

Code: 00 = None and no additional for colum 

-1 Unknown 

KEYPUNCHER: . Co to top of 

column (2) for Colum 47- 

entries 

Il 

Omit 
  
  

0 
6 

 



  

    
  

  

  

] 

A) 

  

    

CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTIM # 1 (Prepare suplemental sheets for additional Victims) 

Victim's Name Frank Cehl 4+ 

iS Sex 

Male = 1 Female = 2 Unknown = 0 / 

20 Race 
62 

White = 1 Black = 2 Nat/American = 3 

Spanish Oriental = 5 Other = 6 Unknown = 0 
speaking = 4 

/ 
66 

2% Age (enter actual # of vears, if known) 

Completely unknown = -1 

If phase of life cycle only is known: 

Aged Adult (over 65) = 99 Teenager (13-10) = ag 

Middle Aged Adult (35-65) = 98 hild (6-12) = 95 a 

Young Adult (20-34) = 97 Preschool (under 6) = 94 7/ 

£768 (2) 

22 Relationship of Victim to Defendant (enter wp to two foils) 

01 = Husband, Wife, or ex 

02 = parent 18 

03 = Step-parent 

04 = Child 

05 = Stepchild 13 

06 = Sibling 29 

07 = In-law 21 

08 = Other family 22 

10 = Neighbor 

11 = Other acquaintance 

12 = 

13 = Employee or ex 

14 = Enplover or ex 

15 = Co-worker or ex 

16 = Friend or ex 

17 = Homosexual relationship 

00 = Unknown 

Il 

a) / 

£5=70 12) 

EERE Be 
crime 71=-72 42) 

Other - known to victim 

Gang ‘member 

Stranger 

Parent-child relationship when it 
can't be determined whether foils 
2 37:4, 00 5 apply 

Boy or girlfriend/ or ex (intimate relationship) 

23 = Business associate when it can't 
be determined whether foils 13, 
4,0 15 apply 

 



  

5 
23 Status of Victim (enter up to two foils) 

  

01 = On duty police officer, 14 = Proprietor/shop owner 
corrections employee or fireman : ey 

ills 15 = Professional 
02 = Judicial officer (or former)/ : 73-74. 123 

District Attomey (or former)/ 16 = Executive 

lawyer 17 = Waitress, bartender, 

03 = White collar worker taxi driver or similar 
: service person 

04 = Unskilled laborer py He 
05 = Security guards (not sworn) 15-76 (2) 

: 18 = Blue collar (all 
06 = Retired skilled laborers will 
07 = Housekeeper (for self or others) be considered blue 

collar; i.e., mechanics, 
08 = Student factory workers, truck 

10 = Juvenile (one not old drivers, etc.) 

enouch to attend school) 19 = Store clerk 

11 = Unemployed or no occupation 20 = Service station attendant 

12 = Drifter and nonresident 21 Militnvy 

13 = Professional criminal 22 = Apartment manager, hotel/ 
motel manager 

23 = Prostitute, pimp 

24 = All other than above = 

25 = Farmer, fisherman 

26 = Foil 8 or 10 applies, but 

it is not clear which 

00 = Unknown 

09. = .[tnter for 2nd foil. if only 
one applies) 

  

Bl < pny. ny ~~ ~ 

a 77=79{3) 

Card 4 1 3 

80 

Case Sn VD 
1-3 {3 

4 Special Aggravating & Mitigating Circumstances of Victim (enter up to 2 foils) 10 
&) 

01 = Bed-ridden/handicapped 07 = Supporting children 4-5 {2} 

62 = Mental 4 i = H ital defective 08 = Hostage aide 

03 = Defenseless because of youth 10 = Victim employed at time of 
{i= yre.) crime 6~7 12) 

04 = Defenseless by virtue of ll = Victim had a criminal record 
acvanced age 

¥ 12 = Other 
05 = Defenseless because of phy- yi Nene 

sical condition or weakness, he 
l.e., frail woman 00 = Unkown 

©
 6 = Pregnant 09 = Not applicable and enter for 2nd 

- Far Fan | em —~— > ~~ ~ - ~~ — 

 



  

  

@ 
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OFFENSE (S) 

25 
(3
) 

o
m
 

Where did the murder (s) occur? 

0l = 

02 = 

Did 
another offense 

the 

01 = 

Hotel, motel, or other cammercial 

short-term residence 

Victim's residence 

without permission) 
(initial entry 

victim's residence (initial entry 

with permission or outside) 

Residence of offender 

Residence of offender and victim 

Other residence (initial entry 

without permission) 

Other residence (initial entry 

with permission or outside) 

Service station 

ligquwr store 

Bar or cocktail lounge 
(and immediate environs) 

Parking lot area 

(Enter up tO 

10 

ili 

12 

  

2 foils) 

Other place of business 

Any vehicle 

Street or sidewalk Pe i2) 

Highway or freeway b) oN, 

10-11 (2) 
County road in rural area 

Park or school grounds 

Vacant field or woods 

Jail/prison 

Other 
  

Other non-commercial public place 

Unknown 

Not applicable and enter for 2nd 

foil if only one applies 

the murder occur while the offender was engaged in the commission of 

offense) (enter up to 3 foils) 

Kidnapping 

Armed Robbery 

Rape 

Aggravated Battery 

Burglary or arson in the 

lst degree 

Other violent personal 
crimes : 
  

  

07 

08 

10 

al 

00 

09 

(whether or not the defendant was charged and convicted of 

a) 0. 

Theft 12-13 (2) 

Prostitution/camercial 

vice/narcotics nm. n%.. 

14-15 (2) 
Other non-violent crime 

  C) 6 

No contemporaneous offense, ,- (5 
Unknown 

Not applicable; enter for 
foils if fewer than 3 apply 

 



  

  

27 Defendant's Motive (enter up to 4 foils) 

01 

03 

05 

06 

07 

08 

10 

11 

a 

Iong term hatred or revenge 

Sex 

Jealousy 

Immediate rage (i.e., when 
conversation leads to argument 
and killing) 

Killing for hire 

To silence a witness to a 
crime 

To facilitate obtaining money 
or other things of value for 
the defendant or another 

To facilitate the commission 
of a non-property related 
rime, i.e., kidnapping 

To collect insurance proceeds 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

00 

0S 

28 Special Precipitating Events (Enter up 

X Dispute between victim and 
defendant over money or 

property 

Dispute due to influence 

of drugs or alcohol 

Dispute between spouses or 
ex—spouses 

Dispute between cther family 
mempers other than spouses 
Or ex—spouses 

5 

Racial animosity a) Of 

To escape custody 18-19 (2) 
from jail or prison b) je 

To:facilitate the victimta =. ... Soi 20-21 (2) 

TO prevent arrest Or recap- 

ture of the defendant or ¢) 0 

Broth 22-23 (2) 
To avenge the role played 

? pam 07 by a present or former 
Judicial. officer, DA or 
lawyer in the exercise 

- of his/her duty 

Other 
  

  

Unclear vhether.13 or 15 
applies, but one of them does 

Unknown 

Not applicable (enter for extra 
foils if fewer than 4 appl?) 

to 2 foils) 9 

a) 
lover's or ex-lover's 26 
quarrel 

So peed b) lover's triangle 

27 
Assault on the defendant 

by the victim or by another 

Other disputes and fights 
where it is wnknown who provoked 
the fights 

Unknown 

Not applicable, i.e., no precipitating 
event enter for 2nd foi) if only 
one applies 

 



G be, Method of killing/cause of death 

01 

02 

}
—
 

  

Il 

Gunshot wound 

Knife wound 

Bruises from (beating lunt object) 

Bruises (beating or stomping with 

person weapens like hand or feet) 

Fractures 

Crushing (e.g., with autanobile) 

Hanging 

Strangulation with hands 

Strangulation with ropes or garrote 

Choking 

Suffocation (e.g., in a refrigerator) 

Smothering (e.g., pillow, blanket) 

23 

24 

25 

00 

(enter wp to 4 folls) 

Bums (arson) 

Electrocution 

Explosion 

Deprivation/Neglect 

Poisoning (including 

carbon monoxide) 

Drug Or narcotic overdose 

Buried alive 

Flame or hot substance 

(non-arson) 

Victim thrown from high 

place 

Other 
  

  

Injuries from ax or similar 

sharp instruments 

Unknown 

Not applicable & enter for 

evtra foils if fewer than 

4 apply  



  

  

02 

04 

06 

¥3 

& 
SPECIAL, AGGRAVATING & MITIGATING FEATURES OF 

= Torture (methodical infliction 
of severe pain to punish victim, 
to extract information, or to 

satisfy sadistic urge) 

= Other infliction of "unnecessary 
pain"; i.e., painful application 
or use of a weapon not necessary 
to swiftly kill the victim) 

= Brutal stomping or beating 
(excessively painful or disfiguring 
abuse with hands or feet motivated 
by desire to cause pain) 

= Lingering death of victim 

= Violent struggle (participants 
injured and fight lasts for more 
than a few minutes) 

= Bloody 

= Victim bound/and or gagged 

= Luring, @Wushing, lying in wait 

= Sniper 

= Execution-type murder (methodical, 
passionless killing of a subdued or 
defenseless victim) 

= Case involved contemporaneous 
felony and the killing was 
unnecessary to complete the crime 
(1.e., store keeper turned over 
money and offered no resistance) 

= Sexual perversion or abuse other 
than rape (sodomy, etc.) 

= Victim pleaded for life 

= Defendant expressed pleasure with 
the killing at the time of the crime 

(with knife or other) 

= Multiple shots to head 

ig 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

3% 

00 

09 

34 

THE OFFENSE (enter up to 6 foils) 
my 

Multiple shots to body ay, 07 

; ; -37 (2) 
Multiple stabbing 30-3 

Slahed throat bp) R35 
38-38 (2) 

Defendant on escape fram 
jail or prison lai g 

: 40- ) 
Defendant actively resisted i=41 12) 
arrest a) oF 

Defendant showed remorse 42-43 (2) 
for crime after capture 0 9 

e) 
Defendant or co-perpetrator 44-45 (2) 
disrobed victim ¥ ; 

Victim was not clothed (in 5 0 
whole or in part) at the 46-47 (2) 
time of the killing 

i 
Le Defendant planned killing 

for more than 5 minutes 
J 

Defendant planned a contemporaneous 
Offense for more than five minutes 

Defendant mutilated, dismembered, 
inflicted serious injury upon or 
sexually assaulted the victim's 
body after death 

Defendant attempted to dispose or 
conceal the body after the murder 

Defendant committed or is alleged 
tO have committed additional crimes 
betweeen the time of the murder and 

his/her arrest (whether or not 
charged) 

Defendant gave him/herself up within 
24 hours the crime was camitted 

. 
after 

Other   

  

£ +=} 
Fewer Than 

NO special aggraveting Cilrcunstances 

 



  

  

JO ; 
OF PERSONS RILLIED 
  

  

By cefendant: enter actual number Unknown = -1 OD} 

Count those actually killed by the cffender, 48-49 (2) 
i.e., those killings for which defendant was the triggerman 

00 

Quit 50=51" (2) 

Nunber of victims killed by other co-perpetrators: enter 
actual number 

Unknown = -1 Not applicable, no co-perpetrators = 99 Xe) 
52=53: {2) 

NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED OR ENDANGERED INUM 
  

(U
9)
 

[Y
o 

CD
 

wn
 

354 

36 

37 

NUMBER OF PERSONS INJURED OTHER THAN DECEASED VICTIM(S) 
  

By defendant: enter actuzl number Unknown = -1 

Not applicable, victim only person involved in the incident = - 2 — 2 

54-55 (2) 

By co-perpetrators: enter actual number Unknown = -1 

Not applicable, victim only person involved in incident or n . 
co-perperratprs = -2 = J 

IZ a gun was used, number of shots fired by defendant and 
Co-peryetrators 

Enter actual number or best estimate Unknown = -1 

Gun not used = -2 OY 

58-59 (2) 

How many more than one person were knowingly exposed to "Great Risk 
of Death" by the conduct of the defendant? 

Enter actual number or best estimate Unknown = -1 i) 

Was the "Great Risk of Death" referred to in question 36 created 
in a public place? 

Yes = 1 

NO = 2 

Uniown = 0 

5 mam, 

Nc one other than victim exposed to "GR of D" by defendant = 9 ] 

62 

   



  

BN 
STATUS OF DEFENDANT Enter one foil | 02 

  

el 

38 63-64 (2) 

01 = On duty police officer, 
corrections employee Or 
fireman 

02 = White collar worker 18 = Blue collar worker 
(same definition as for (all skilled laborers, 
victim, status of) see victim, status of) 

03 = Unskilled laborer 19 = Store clerk 

04 = Security guards (not 20 = Service station attendant 
sworn officers) 

21 = Military 
05 = Retired 

22 = Apartment manager, 
06 = Bousekeeper, for self hotel/motel manager 

or others 

23 = Prostitute, pimp 
07 = Student 

24 = Farmer, fisherman 
08 = Juvenile (one not old 

enough to attend school) 25 = Other than above 

10 = Babysitter of victim 
00 = Unknown 

11 = Unemployed, sporadic or 
no occupation 

12 = Drifter 

13 = Professional criminal 

14 = Proprietor/shop owner 

15 = Professional 

16 = Executive 

17 = Waitress, bartender, 
taxidriver, or similar 
service person 

 



  

— TT RY DEL 
ain 

  

  

  

Quit (no colums) 

A'S ROLE IN THE VICTIM'S DEATH AND IN ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS FELONY 
  

NS
 

| 

- Number of co-perpetrators: Enter actual number. Enter 00 1 

acted alone. If 00 is entered, enter 89 
— 

z 

for questions 41 & 42 

9g = Unknown how many co-perpetrators, but there were 

co-perpetrators. 
65-66 (2) 

-1 = It is unknown if there were any co—perpetrators. BY 0 

67-68 (2) 

IZ there was a co-perpetrator(s), did the defendant (enter up eY Bp a 

to two foils; for colums b & ©) woman il AC ne 
69-70 (2) 

toc commit murder = 1 

; : E) ct as an agent or 

2 employee for another 

person 

In the murder? = 02 

i In the murder = 08 
In a contEnporanecus 

felony? = 03 In a contemporaneous crime?, = 10 

C) Participate Cirectly as a F) Not play a direct rple 

co-equal e.q., a lockout 

In the murder? = 04 In the murder? = 11 

In a contemperaneous In a contemporaneous crime? = 12 

crime? = 05 
G) Other = 13 

D) Act as an underling or minor 

participant H) Unknown = 00 

In the murder? = 06 I) Not applicable - no co-perpetrators 

and no contemporaneous crime; also 
enter for 2nd foil 12. only cone 

applies = 09 
In a contemporaneous crime? = 07 

‘ 

  

  

  
 



  

{3 

  

412 Defendant's trial 

l = The liability trial was before a jury 

  

71 
2 = The liability trail was before a judge only 

8 = the judge imposed sentence after the guilty plea AE 
72 

Defendant's Defense at liability trial G 

3 = A131 
73 

4 = Accident 
9 
74 

5 = Insanity or delusional camplusion 

6 = Mistaken identity (sameone else did it) 

7 = Defendant claimed voluntary or involuntary manslaughter 

9 = Enter for additional folls if fewer than 4 apply 

BIANK 00000 

  

  

 



  

A 

    

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES 

  

Relating to the offense from the defendant's perspective (enter up to 8 foils) 

he DEFENDANT: a) = IG 

4=5: 42) 
01 = Acted under duress or the damination of another person 

me 8 3 
02 = Defendant had used alcohol or drugs immediately previous 6-7 (2) 

to the crime 
C) 

03-06: The affect on the defendant at the time of the crime 8-9 (2) 
f the drugs or alcohol he/she consumed was: 

a if 
03 = Negligible 10-11 (2) 

04 = Slight e) 9 
12-13. (2) 

oO
 

uw
 Il 7 p ) (D
 

06 = Substantial 14-15 (2) 

07 = Had a history of drug or alcolrl abuse Sen 
16-17 (2) 

OF = Was not the actual killer -= only an accessory o 

h) 0 
Yo = Bad no intent to kill 18-197 (2) 

11 = Ead a questionable mental capacity to appreciate the 
wrongfulness of his conduct because of mental disease or 

defect 

12 = Drotionally disturbed at time of killing, as opposed to being 
under influence of drugs or alcohol 

13 = Had a moral justification for killing (e.g., needed money for sick 

child, specify) 

  

  

14 = Swrrendered to authorities 

15 = Cocperated with authorities (e.g., testified for prosecution) 

16 = Co-perpetrator(s) received life sentence(s), a lesser, or no sentence 

17-20 = Other extenuating circumstances relating to the defendant (specify and 
entev'a foil 17, 18, 19 or 20 for each) 

00 = Unknown 

09 = Not applicable because no mitigating factors (enter for extra foils 

if fewer than 8 apply) 

 



  

> 

43 RELATING TO THE VICTIM (Enter up to 4 foils) 

  

  

  

01 = Aroused defendant's sex 14 = Victim showing or al 2) 
desire talking about large 

amounts of money b) 79 
02 = Aroused defendant's rage TT 

just prior to killing 15 = History of bad blood 
between defendant and ap 9 

03 = Previous action to arouse victim 75-7517) 
defendant's hate 

: 
16 = Victim consent a) 09 04 = Aroused defendant's fear 56-37 12) 

for life le.g., in a fight) 17 = Victim a fugitive at 
time of killing 

05 = Provoked defendant with 
verbal abuse or attack 18-20 = Other extenuating 

circumstances related 
06 = Had abused (physically or to the victim (specify 

verbally), assaulted or and enter numbers 18- 
injured a person that 20 for each) 
defendant cared about 

07 = Provoked defendant by 
striking, attacking or 
starting 'a fight 21 = » apparent extenuating circumstances related 

the victim 
08 = Victim had used alcohol 

or drugs immediately 4% 
prior to crime 

Had a criminal record 

23 = A participant in the crime 
10-13 = What were the effects on 

  

  

  

the victim of the alcohol 00 = Unknown 
or drugs used prior to 
the crime: 09 = Enter for extra foils if fewer than 4 apply 

10 = Negligible 
11 = Slight 
12 = Moderate 

13 = Substantial 

44 STATUTORY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (for "no penalty" trial cases only) 99999969499 

28 =~ 27 (10) 
45 Number of supplemental victim forms campleted for this questionnzire O 

(regardless of actual number of victims) Enter actual # T completed 38 

45A Defendant's IQ Unknown = -01 
~B. 

38-41: {3) Blank 

42-79 Card Number 3 
a 

per 3 30 ~ 1 N 
f 

: Cocer's Name hd hr Please return to: 
Pate of Coding 202 / David C. Baldus 

College of Law Source of Trfcmmation Si (A University of Iow   Iowa 

Iowa City, 1253252 
  

 



      
Ne 2 - & 

lb 2 
Narrative Summary of the Case. A 50-150 word summary including a) all facts 
Presented in the in the answers to the preceding questions and b) any special cir- 
mStance not covered in the preceding questions. Please highlight factors 

not covered in the answers to the preceding questions. 

    

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

  

  
  
  

  

  

 



  

Cffender's Name WARREL Mc tLESKkY Case # 7 = 
Narrative Summary of the Case. 2A 50-150 word summary including a) all facts presented in the answers to the Preceding questions and by) any special cir- curstance not covered in the Preceding questions. Dlease highlight factors that bear on the defendant's culpability and might explain why the prosecutor did ar did not seek a death sentence, Also include a brief summary of the sources of evidence that indicate the strength of the evidence in the case. 

Wi ie t. 2 2 £32 iL bl, 6 pavie ny b oe Fergie 

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

“A 
3 

/ 2 Ks Yd Z lt Lr Zorrt bbe Url ores £5 2 Wx] 
: > gf rf ald Lb, he w/e 7 Lu lpn] ot A. fe : Jr He _—s 7 

F
a
 

a
 

L
e
e
r
 

s
a
r
 
r
y
 

dz. rd £ lo Wad Ar Z 4 Wi “2 PINE 724¢C [ra yd zr / ’ 
i 7 { 4 / 

¥Ls FL ts tor bree ) rand A Lo ofr bir Zor A lost; CR 

  oF
 

  

  

  

    
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

  
  

            
  

    
  

    
  

  
      

    

  
  

  

z 

3 fo sob ’ z 57 Liga Jot Wop Lop” 2 4 ran. 4 i “ Ley i Fi ve 
> a of Fin 2 7 Ta A Z “5 Lv Soin Ie wr 5 < reg 

i 3 Ire Fin / vnc 17.3, ra Z wie “ lpr nt 
Xo 

y =“ 
: , lalla d. JJ oy Lo lp galt i ret, rE Re REE . 7 

v 2 N fr 7 Ad, L AC ety Fr) ne re 50, ole ra Te — aa %otyiis 4 / Lv od 4 4 ? NS Lp Arne 2d Ed pe ry : z ral ZF {2 rey Hed fan, Ig ne 

x % cornded 2: yict.s extercd, a irik beg Liteon 

0% 4 he 2d Sorte £7 re li ze, Mit > ‘el, 2 Lp’ ne 
am oN 
ghee 7s Yosad rad Putz Ea hid Sr AF J: Zr 
Rix, ¥ 

RF re LEsy, 907 rhe ofr ho y wie Po, eA heed, A lrg 
NN hy 2¢ arliet, 2 ceprpaf raeptd sad J Hel soo ay oy » 

pron 3 S 3 1%gt 4 had $4.7 ng A rou / iL rE uprhS (7 2 [ee ; g 

nr if "& Dov 3 {e425 wreck d weir lt slegr Hi “&s #11 =) EA vt r V4 dd Hi 7 edd > ~~ 
pA | I 

was 2 & 3 Ltd Ia 9/0! ; Lk 1 ag p27 BE Hoe “A J Fre a EN id 

id Gyst Sion (pete dmes buy af dl Color ori thi 7 rg Lend Sh a CL a i th heb =r iE 

Wi LAL i 27 i vrs Sifinee vs or Songs) Lr a “rt un 7 MBE ie 
2 ‘wes rs ri cer fd Li 174 oN Jie 2 : : ; i TC 

2 pled iol he / J # i! vA Zieh 2 : hte > : -* 77 ~ 
wr 1h SiS 40 ‘ Val. da) £7 ’ eo JA i TR ’ 4 : AY Lor il 2 Chm 

/ rd . phi f / t ps Gene Fanees Gund rig malts 4 Tiida Dd oc Ae a gr me 
J 

  

> 2 Lid wider 2b F prre ellirr 

 



  

( 

C 
  

0 

  

  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

ATLANTA DIVISION 

WARREN MCCLESKEY. 

PETITIONER, 
CIVIL ACTION 

NO. C81 24344 
WALTER D. ZANT. WARDEN, 
GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC AND 
CLASSIFICATION CEDNTER., 

RESPONDENT. 

A. 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

lf Sr ) 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

PROCEEDINGS 

EEFORE THE HONORABLE J. OWEN FORRESTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE HELD AT ATLANTA, GEORGIA ON NOVEMBER 24. 1982... 

APFEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 

ROBERT H. STROUP, 

ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. 

NICHOLAS G. DUMICH, 

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT. 

  

JIM PUGH, CQURT REPQRTER 

  

 



  

  

2 

L: 1 (ATLANTA, FULTON COUNTY. GEORGIA; NOVEMBER 24. 

; 2 |1982, IN CHAMBERS.) 

5 Sian 

4 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE ATTORNEYS ARE HERE 

S |IN MCCLESKEY VERSUS ZANT. AND I UNDERSTAND THE STATE WOULD 

& |LIKE TO HAVE DISCOVERY, AND A CONTINUANCE TO CONDUCT 

7  |DISCOVERY. 

8 IS THAT RIGHT? 

9 . MR. DUMICH: YES. SIR. THAT’S THE REASON I 

10 |ASKED FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING ON THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE THE 

11  |HEARING IS NOW SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 2, AND AFTER CONSULTING 

12  |WITH SEVERAL EXPERTS, BOTH HERE IN THE STATE AND OUTSIDE THE 

13 STATE, WE DID TALK IN GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THE PRELIMINARY 

F
N
 

[w
y 

5H
 

FINDINGS WHICH WERE ATTACHED TO THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS 

13 PROVIDED US BY PROFESSOR BALDUS. 

16 ~ BUT EVERYONE OF OUR EXPERTS POINTED TO NUMEROUS 

17 FINDINGS THAT WERE IN THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS. AND INDICATED 

is THAT THEY WOULD ALL NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH. 

19 AND WE NEED TO EXAMINE THE UNDERLYING RAW DATA 

20 TO VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE CONCLUSIONS THAT PROFESSOR BALDUS 

21 HAD DRAWN. WHETHER OR NOT THOSE CONCLUSIONS WERE ACCURATE. 

22 AND THEY ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE MODEL 

23 WHICH HE HAS UTILIZED, HIS REGRESSION MODEL. AND THEY ALL 

24 SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THEY WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THAT 

23 REGRESSION MODEL. THE ANALYSIS OF THAT MODEL, WHICH IS       

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

 



  

ll 

  

  

nN
 

10 

  

v
0
 

i, 
FE
L 

ga
 

»H
 

  

IC 

NORMALLY, WHEN THEY DO A MODEL. A REGRESSION MODEL. THERE”S AN 

ANALYSIS THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT, THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT 

ANALYZIS ALSO. AND THE CODE BOOK THAT THEY USED WITH THE 

REGRESSION MODEL. AND, FOR THE STUDY IN GENERAL. THE COMPUTER 

CODE BOOK. 

THE ONLY WAY I SAW WE COULD DO ANY KIND OF 

MEANINGFUL ANALYSIS WAS TO GET. IF NOT ALL THE GUESTIONNAIRES 

HANDWRITTEN OUT. AND THE RAM DATA. IF WE COULDN-T GET ALL OF 

THOSE, FOR EXAMPLE. TOO VOLUMINOUSZ. TOO BURDENSOME. THEN 

PERHAPS WE COULD GET THE COMPUTER TAPES OR THE COMPUTER CARDS, 

THE MEDIA. MACHINE MEDIA THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS PUT ON, IF 

WE COULD GET A COPY OF THAT INFORMATION. THEN WE COULD UTILIZE 

THAT RAW DATA IN PERFORMING SIMILAR TESTS. AND STUDIES. AND IN 

FORMULATING SIMILAR MODELS ALSO AS WAS UTILIZED BY DOCTOR 

BALDUS. 

WE PROPOSED. I THINK, A REASONABLE CONTINUANCE 

OF &0 DAYS IN ORDER FOR US TO SECURE COFIES OF THAT TYPE OF 

INFORMATION. AND ALSO TO TAKE DOCTOR BALDUS” DEPOSITION. 

AND WHAT I PROPOSED IN THE MOTION WAS AT THE 

END OF THAT 60-DAY PERIOD WAS PERHAPS HAVE A CONFERENCE TO SET 

DOWN A SPECIFIC DATE FOR A HEARING ON THE ISSUES. THAT IS. 

SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. IM NOT SURE WHAT THE COURT’S SCHEDULE 

WOULD BE LIKE. 60 DAYS FROM DECEMBER. 

THE COURT: AND YOUR PROBLEMS? 

MR. STROUP: YOUR HONOR. WE DON‘T OBJECT TO 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

( 

0h:
 

o
y
 

hd
 

0 

  

  

SOME REASONABLE DISCOVERY. 

QUR CONCERN UPON RECEIVING THE MOTION WAS THAT 

PARAGRAFH 9 THAT SETS OUT THE SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT WERE SOUGHT, 

WE WERE NOT QUITE SURE WHETHER THE STATE WANTED ALL OF THEM, 

SOME FORTION OF THEM. AND WE“RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE 

POTENTIAL BURDEN THAT MAY BE PLACED ON DOCTOR BALDUS WITH THE 

DISCOVERY. 

WE THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE BENEFIT, THE 

HEARING WOULD BENEFIT FROM DISCOVERY. WERE JUST CONCERNED 

ABOUT THE POTENTIAL BURDENSOME NATURE OF IT. 

AMONG THE THINGS REQUESTED WERE THE 

QUESTIONNAIRES USED IN THE STUDY. ONE STUDY, ONE 

GUESTIONNAIRE USED WAS 30 PAGES LONG. 

ANOTHER QUESTIONNAIRE WAS 47 PAGES LONG. 

220-PAGE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS USED IN STUDYING 

600 CASES. 

247-PAGE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS USED IN STUDYING IN 

IN EXCESS OF 600 PAGES. 

THE COURT: CASES? 

MR. STROUP: CASES. I“M SORRY. 

MY MATH THIS MORNING GOT ME UP TO SO THOUSAND 

PAGES. 

IF STATE WANTS THAT MATERIAL. I DON’T THINK 

WE OBJECT TO THEIR GETTING IT, SO LONG AS SOME REASONABLE 

ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPOSITION ON DOCTOR 

  

JIM PUGH. COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

  

wt
 

£) 1 BALDUS. 

2 I MEAN, I THINK HES WILLING TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE 

iC: FOR THE STATE TO DO THE COPYING. IF THATS WHAT THEY WANT. 

4 MR. DUMICH: YOUR HONOR. IN THAT REGARD, IF IT 

= WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR US TO COPY ALL THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES, I 

& WASNT SURE IF IT WOULD BE NECESSARY OR NOT UNTIL WE HAD A 

7 DISCUSSION. WE COULD TAKE DOCTOR BALDUS- DEPOSITION, BUT I WAS 

e THINKING ABOUT, IN TERMS OF, WE WOULD AT LEAST WANT TO 

@ SPOTCHECK OR VERIFY A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF THOSE 

10 QUESTIONNAIRES TQ MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION ON THOSE 

11 QUESTIONNAIRES WAS ACCURATE, BECAUSE THAT INFORMATION WAS 

12 TAKEN FROM CASES. BOTH FROM THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT AND FROM 

13 THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION. 

THE COURT: WHERE ARE THESE DOCUMENTS ]   
15  |PHYSICALLY LOCATED? 

16 MR. STROUP: I THINK THEY ARE UP IN NEW YORK. 

17 IN SYRACUSE, YOUR HONOR. THAT*S MY UNDERSTANDING. 

18 THE COURT: I WOULD THINK SOMETHING LIKE ALONG 

19  |THIS LINE. THIS MIGHT BE REASONABLE AND ECONOMICAL. AN 

20  |ECONOMICAL APPROACH. 

21 YOU AND AN EXPERT BE ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE 

22  |UNDERLYING QUESTIONNAIRES. JUST FOR FORMAT, ACCURACY AND THAT 

22  |SORT OF THING. WERE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE A DAY, JUST SITTING 

24  |DOWN AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THEM. 

25 PROPQUND SOME INTERROGATORIES THAT WOULD GET 

  

            

JIM PUGH. COURT REPORTER 

 



  

N
O
 

(C4
) 

  

  

6 

YOU THE THEORETICAL DATA THAT YOU NEED. AND THEN DEPOSE BALDUS 

AND THEN SEE WHAT YOU NEED. 

DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE TO YOU? 

MR. DUMICH: YES. SIR. 

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT YOU? 

MR. STROUP: I DON’T THINK WE HAVE ANY TROUBLE 

WITH THAT. YOUR HONCR. 

THE COURT: WHY DON’T WE DO THAT. CAN YOU D0 

THAT IN FORTY-FIVE DAYS? 

MR. DUMICH: SURELY. 

THE COURT: AND THEN COME BACK. AND LETS 

DISCUSS WHAT YOU NEED AFTER YOU HAVE DONE THAT. 

MR. DUMICH: ALL RIGHT. 

THE COURT: THAT ALL RIGHT WITH Y-ALL? 

MR. STROUP: THAT’S FINE, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: SO YOU LET HIM EXAMINE. AND —— I 

WOULD NOT THINK, BOB,» THAT DOCTOR BALDUS WOULD HAVE TO BE 

THERE, PRESENT, FOR INSTANCE. FOR A DAY OR TWO, WHILE THEYRE 

PHYSICALLY LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS. HE MIGHT WANT TO BE 

THERE AN HOUR OR SO TO EXPLAIN. INFORMALLY, WHAT THEY“RE 

LOOKING AT. 

I WOULD THINK, NICK, SINCE HE“S AN EXPERT. YOU 

WOULD PAY HIM FOR THE FAIR TIME FOR WHICH HE’S INFORMALLY 

LOOKING AT THE DATA. 

I WOULD NOT EXPECT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

Co 

  

[] 

1&6 

  

  

7 

HIM FOR ONE DAY OR TWO DAYS OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE I DON’T THINK 

HES GOT TO SIT THERE AND WATCH YOU LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS. 

MR. DUMICH: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THAT INCLUDE 

SUCH THINGS ARS ANALYSIS OF THIS REGRESSION MODEL? 

THE COURT: THATS WHAT I“M TRYING TO GET YOU 

TO DO. 

YOUR EXPERTS OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO TELL YQU WHAT 

QUESTIONS TO ASK TO GET HIS MODEL AND HIS ANALYSIS, DON'T YOU 

THINK? 

| MR. DUMICH: YES. SIR. 
Pa 

THE ONLY —— ONE, I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE, FOR 

EXAMPLE, LAST NIGHT. WHO INDICATED THAT WHENEVER THE MODEL 

PERFORMS, WHATEVER THE COMPUTER DOES. AND WRITES OUT ALL THIS 

INFORMATION, LOT OF TIMES IT WILL PRINT A LoT OF INFORMATION 

QUT IN REGARDS TO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS FACTORS. 

LOT OF THAT STUFF IS PRINTED RIGHT OUT THERE ON THE SHEETS. 

AND HE INDICATED TO ME LAST NIGHT IT WOULD BE 

OF BENEFIT TO LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION THAT WAS ON THAT. 

THE COURT: WELL, I DON‘T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE 

TALKING ABOUT A NOTICE TO PRODUCE OR AN INTERROGATORY. BUT THE 

POINT IS. IT SEEM3 LIKE TO ME YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO ASK THE 

PETITIONER THE QUESTIONS NECESSARY TO GET THAT DATA IN AN 

INTERROGATORY. AND IF YOU NEEDED A SAMPLE, THEN A SIMPLE 

NOTICE TO PRODUCE. DESCRIBING WITH SOME PARTICULARITY WHAT 

YOURE TALKING ABOUT, AND I IMAGINE PETITIONER AT THAT POINT 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

4 

[8
 

wn
 

  

NY
 

0 
s
O
 

  

8 

COULD JUST MAKE YOU A COPY AND SHOOT IT TO YOU, AND. WERE NOT 

TALKING ABDUT THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS. AND, ITS CHEAP THAT 

WAY. 

MR. STROUP: I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE 

ACCEPTABLE, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: HAVING LOOKED AT THE DOCLIMENTS, 

GOTTEN YOUR INTERROUGATORY ANSWERS, LOOKED AT THE MATERIAL 

YOU RE TALKING ABOUT THERE. YQU OUGHT TO BE IN POSITION TO 

DEFOSE HIM. AND KNOW WHAT YOU NEED. 

I WOULD SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT YOU WOULD 

NEED TO KNOW WHAT FACTORS WERE TAKEN INTO EFFECT, WHAT FACTORS 

WERE NOT TAKEN INTO EFFECT. WHAT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS WAS 

USED, HOW HE DID IT, THE SIGNIFICANCE. ALL THAT SORT OF THING. 

AND, YOU MIGHT ULTIMATELY BE NEEDING TO GET 

THE PROGRAM VERIFIED TQ MAKE SURE THAT THE PROGRAM IS DOING 

WHAT HE SAYS IT IS. AND -- 

MR. DUMICH: APPARENTLY THE TYPE OF PROGRAM 

HE“S USING IS PRETTY STANDARD. THEY KNEW EXACTLY THE TYPE CF 

ANALYSIS. | 

I THINK THERE WAS SOME QUESTICGN AS TO WHETHER 

OR NOT THERE WAS, I DONT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT STATISTICS MYSELF, 

BUT THE POINTS THAT ARE PLOTTED ALONG THIS REGRESSION MODEL. 

WHETHER OR NOT THOSE POINTS OR THOSE PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, 

EACH POINT WOULD REPRESENT A PARTICULAR TYPE CASE, WHETHER OR 

NOT THEY FELL WITHIN A PROPER NORM THAT WOULD GIVE VALIDITY TO 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

gS 

  

  

      

0 
3 

© 
ry
 

0 

  

  

THE CONCLUSIONS HE WAS DRAWING CONCERNING THE —- 

THE COURT: THAT IS A CONCERN. I GUESS YOU 

COULD SAY THE INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY OF HIS MODEL. 

YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT GETTING HIS TAPES, 

AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING. 

I, I REALIZE THAT WHAT A STATISTICIAN SAYS AND 

WHAT THE PROGRAM DOES CAN BE DIFFERENT. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND 

YOU WOULD WANT TO VALIDATE THE PROGRAM IS DOING WHAT HE SAYS 

IT’S DOING. 

BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD ACCOMPLISH BY 

GETTING ALL OF HIS COMPUTER TAPES TO RERUN IT. ONCE YOU 

VALIDATED THE PROGRAM. 

MR. DUMICH: HE USED CERTAIN VARIABLES AND CAME 

UP WITH CERTAIN RESULTS. 

WE WOULD WANT, MAYBE, TO CHANGE THOSE VARIABLES. 

THE COURT: CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE? 

MR. DUMICH: FOR EXAMPLE. ONE OF HIS 

CLASSIFICATIONS RELATED TO FOUR GROUPINGS OF AGGRAVATING 

FACTORS. LOW AGGRAVATING FACTORS. LOW MEDIUM AGGRAVATING 

FACTORS, MEDIUM HIGH AND HIGH AGGRAVATING FACTORS. 

NOW, HE SOMEHOW GROUPED THE CASES WHICH FELL 

INTO THOSE AREAS. AND I“M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW HE GROUPED 

THEM. 

YOU KNOW. WE. UPON LOOKING AT THE PARTICULAR 

CASES, MAY SAY, WELL. WE FEEL IT“S MORE RELEVANT TO GROUP 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  
b, 

LN
 

4}
 

vg
 

0 
9 

  

  

10 

THESE TYPES OF CASES IN THIS OTHER AREA, AND IF YOU DO THAT. 

IT MIGHT CHANGE THE OUTCOME AND THE CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER 

OR NOT THERE-S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN. BETWEEN THE 

RESLILTS OBTAINED FROM INDIVIDUALS TO KILL BLACK AND WHITE 

VICTIMS. 

TRY TQ THINK OF ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE, IM 

TRYING TO THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HERE. I DO KNOW THAT HE 

HAS CONZIDERED A LOT OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES. AND OUR CONCERN 

WAS, IF YOU CHANGE SOME OF THESE VARIABLES THAT WERE. THAT 

WERE: THAT HE PLACED EMPHASIS ON. WHETHER OR NOT IF YOU LOOK 

AT THE PARTICULAR CASE, FOR EXAMPLE , THE DATA ON A PARTICULAR 

CASE THAT SHOWS THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL. YOU KNOW, I DON’T THINK 

HIS STUDY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE RACE OF THE DEFENDANT. 

IF YOU CONSIDER THAT VARIABLE INTO THE FACTOR, WOULD THAT 

CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION THAT HE REACHED, 

OR IF YOU LOOKED AT THE STUDY. HAS SOME RELATIONSHIP, HAS SOME 

INFORMATION, THE GUESTIONNAIRES HAVE SOME INFORMATION AS TO 

SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF THE INDIVIDUAL. IM NOT SURE 

IF HE UTILIZED THAT VARIABLE IN DRAWING HIGHEST CONCLUSIONS. 

IF THAT VARIABLE WAS CHANGED. WOULD THAT PERHAPS 

MAKE A DIFFERENCE, OR MAYBE THE DEMOGRAPHICS, AS FAR AS WHERE 

THESE INDIVIDUALS CAME FROM, IF THEY CAME FROM COUNTIES. FOR 

EXAMPLE. THAT WERE PRIMARILY BLACK. AND IF WE CAN SHOW THAT 

THE JURIEZ IN THOSE COUNTIES WERE PRIMARILY BLACK, AND THE 

VICTIMS WERE PRIMARILY BLACK IN THOSE COUNTIES, WOULD THAT 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

~   

[Y
Y 

O
y
 

gy
 

ow
 

0 
d
N
 

  

  

5) 

MAKE ANY KIND OF DIFFERENCE. 

THE COURT: S0 YOU BASICALLY WANT TQ TAKE HIS 

DATA AND RUN YOUR OWN PROGRAM. IS WHAT YOURE SAYING, OR YOU 

MAY -—- 

MR. DUMICH: CHANGE THE VARIABLES ON IT. YES, 

SIR. BASICALLY TO SEE IF THESE ALLEGED DIFFERENCES IN 

TREATMENT HE. HE POINTS QUT A LOT OF DIFFERENCES THAT ARE NOT 

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT IN HIS OWN STUDY, AND JUST A FEW 

AREAS WHERE HE CONCLUDES THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN 

TREATMENTS. 
a PCat 

THE COURT: WHAT ARE THOSE? 

MR. DUMICH: ILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STUDY 

BASICALLY. WHAT WE WANTED TO TRY TO SHOW, 

I BELIEVE, IS THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT CAN ALSO BE 

EXPLAINED JUST AS WELL IN OTHER VARIAELES AS WELL AS RACE. 

THE COURT: RACE OF THE DEFENDANT, OR RACE OF 

THE VICTIM? 

MR. DUMICH: RACE OF THE VICTIM. DEPENDING ON 

HOW YOU LOOK AT THOSE VARIABLES. 

THE COURT: I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE DECISION 

WILL DEAL WITH THE RACE QF THE VICTIM ARGUMENT. 

MR. DUMICH: WELL, THAT APPEARS TO BE WHAT THIS 

WHOLE STUDY IS AIMED AT. 

THE COURT: I DIDN’T NECESSARILY LINDERSTAND 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

  

( 1 THAT TO BE THE CASE. 
nN
 

DO YOUU UNDERSTAND THAT TO BE THE CASE? 

3 MR. STROUP: NO, YOUR HONOR. 

4 I THINK THAT PRELIMINARY STUDY WHICH WAS AS OF 

JUNE, WHICH WAS AS FAR AS HE HAD GONE. FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON a]
 

6 THAT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT BALDUS HAS DONE WITH THE 

7 DATA SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE GOES FAR BEYOND THAT. 

3 THE COURT: YOU WEREN‘T IN MCCORQUODALE. THAT 

14 CAME OUT IN THOSE STUDIES. AND THOSE WEREN'T AS GOOD AS THIS 

10  |ONE MAY TURN OUT TO BE. 

11 THERE WAS AN INTERESTING, UNEXPLAINAELE 

12 |GEDGRAPHIC PATTERN SUCH THAT IF YOU WERE CHARGED WITH A 

13 [CAPITAL FELONY IN MIDDLE GEORGIA, YOU HAD A MUCH GREATER 

ik 14  |CHANCE OF GETTING THE DEATH PENALTY THAN IF YOU WERE CHARGED 

15 IN SOUTH GEORGIA. ATLANTA OR NORTH GEORGIA. 

16 NOW, I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THE 

17 |RACE OF THE VICTIM. I DON’T THINK, I DON’T WANT TO SAY THAT 

18 ITS INSIGNIFICANT. BUT IF I UNDERSTAND THE PETITIONER”S 

19  |PRIMARY CONCERNS. IT IS THAT THE LEGAL MODEL SET UP IN GREGG 

20 I5 NOT WORKING TQ GUIDE. TO GUIDE THE DISCRETION OF THE JURY, 

21 AND THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS BEYOND THOSE PERMISSIBLE IN 

22 |THE MODEL, WHICH ARE RESULTING IN DISPARATE APPLICATION OF THE 

23 |DEATH PENALTY. 

24 WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD YOU HAVE GWINNETT 

25 |COUNTY, WITH THE DISPROPORTIONATE PEOPLE ON DEATH ROW THAT IT       

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

 



  

o 
- 

  

  

Nl
 

OO
 

0 

20 

  

  

13 

WOULD HAVE. IF GREGG WAS WORKING. AND I“M JUST ARGUING. YOU 

KNOW. WE HAVE AS MUCH OR MORE CRIME IN FULTON COUNTY. AND YET. 

IF YOU COMPARE THOSE TWO COUNTIES, YOU MIGHT HAVE A REGIONAL 

VARIATION. 

I-M JUST SEIZING ON THAT AS ONE EXAMPLE. 

BEYOND THE RACE OF THE VICTIM, WHICH HAS PROBABLY BEEN PUT TC 

THE COURT. TO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. ABOUT AS WELL AS IT’S 

GOING TG BE PUT. I PRESUME, IN THE MCCORQUODALE CASE. 

BASICALLY. THE DISTRICT COURT SAID IT DIDNT 

MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. RELYING ON THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE TO 

MAKE A CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATION. 

I GUESS PART OF WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE WAS THAT 

THE RACE OF THE VICTIM WASN’T CONSTITUTIONALLY SIGNIFICANT IN 

TERMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TERMS. IT WAS KIND OF ALMOST 

PUT AS AN EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT OF THE VICTIM. I DON-T 

KNOW HOW ELSE TO CHARACTERIZE IT. 

BUT DOCTOR BOWERS AND HIS COLLEAGUE SUGGESTED. 

ALTHOUGH THEY DIDN’T BEGIN THE, TO ADJUST THE FACTORS. THAT 

YOU WOULD FIND UNEXFLAINED VARIATIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF 

THE DEATH PENALTY WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE WAS HELD CONSTANT. AND 

WE DON‘T GET INTO THE RACE OF THE VICTIM. | 

YOU“VE GOT» WELL. THE REGIONAL VARIATION IS THE 

ONE THAT I CAN BEST THINK OF. 

AND ALL OF THIS I“M SAYING IS TO MAKE CERTAIN 

THAT YOU ARE FOCUSING ON THE ISSUE THAT I THINK. THAT I 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

  

  

14 

UNDERSTAND THE PETITIONER TO BE PUTTING FORWARD. AND THAT IS, 

USING THE REGRESSION ANALYSIS. THEYRE TRYING TO HOLD A LOT 

MORE FACTORS CONSTANT. AND FIND DISPARATIES. OR UNEXPLAINED 

FACTORS BEYOND RACE OF VICTIM. 

1S THAT FAIR. BOB? 

MR. STROUP: I THINK THAT”S CORRECT. YOUR 

HONOR. 

THE COURT: $0. MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU GET THE 

WHOLE CONTENTION. 

MR. DUMICH: WELL, THE DETAILS IN THIS STUDY, 

THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS THAT WE EXAMINED, YOU KNOW, WE DON’T 

HAVE A COPY OF THE FINAL STUDY IN EITHER THE PROCEDURAL REFORM 

STUDY OR THE CHARGE AND SENTENCES. THATS ANOTHER THING I 

WANTED TO GET A COPY, WAS THE FINAL RESULT OF THEIR STUDY. 

THE COURT: AT SOME POINT IN TIME. I THINK YOU 

WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IT ON NOTICE TO PRODUCE, AS WELL AS I 

THINK YOU COULD PROPOUND SOME INTERROGATORIES THAT WOULD HOME 

IN ON ALL THEIR CONTENTIONS. 

WHAT I“M SUGGESTING TO YOU, I GAVE YOU FORTY-FIVE 

DAYS, THAT MIGHT NOT GIVE YOU ENOUGH. I MIGHT OUGHT TO GIVE 

YOU 60 DAYS. 

YOU MIGHT SHOULD SERVE YOUR INTERROGATORIES 

IN FIFTEEN DAYS, 30 DAYS TO ANSWER. AND YOU WOULD HAVE ABOUT 

FIFTEEN DAYS TO DEPOSE BALDUS, AND ANALYZE WHERE YOU ARE. SO 

YOU PROBABLY DO NEED &0 DAYS. 

  

JIM PUGH. COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

  

$2 a 4 

[N)
 

4]
 

O
R
E
 
H
M
 

BR
 

  

  

        

15 

BOB. YOURE PROBABLY IN A BETTER POSITION TC 

KNOW THIS. NOT YOU PERSONALLY, BUT JACK GOGER. THERES NO USE 

IN SPENDING THE DEFENSE FUNDS MONEY OR STATEZS MONEY. IF ANY 

OF THIS HAS GONE ON AND DECIDED IN SOME OTHER CASE. 

WHAT IM ASKING BOTH OF YOU TO DO, I KNOW YOU 

WELL ENOUGH. YOU KNOW BETTER THAN RAISING THE SAME ISSUE IN A 

WHOLE LOT OF COURTS AT THE SAME TIME. I WANT YOU TO BE 

MUTUALLY AWARE. AND EXCHANGE INFORMATION ON WHAT OTHER COURTS 

ARE DOING WITH THIS INFORMATION, COPY ME WITH IT, BECAUSE THIS 

15 GOING TO BE AN EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING UNDERTAKING. 

MR. DUMICH: AS FAR AS I KNOW.» THE ISSUE WAS 

RAISED IN SMITH V. BALKCOM» WHEN HE FILED A HABEAS IN STATE 

COURT. BUT THE STATE COURT DIDN‘T GRANT THE PETITION. 50 AS 

FAR AS I KNOW. THIS IS THE ONLY CASE —- 

THE COURT: THAT MAY BE THE ONLY CASE IN 

GEORGIA. BUT FROM MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THESE FOLKS. 

THEY ARE RAISING THE SAME QUESTIONS IN THE FOURTH. FIFTH AND 

ELEVENTH CIRCUITS. AT LEAST. 

MR. STROUP: I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE 

OTHER STUDIES INVOLVING OTHER STATES. 

I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE DATA WOULD BE DIFFERENT 

STATE TO STATE. 

THE COURT: OH, I KNOW THE DATA WOULD BE 

DIFFERENT. 

BUT, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT, FOR INSTANCE, A     

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

 



  

  

16 

C 1 PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IN DEALING WITH THAT THAT DOCTOR BOWERS 

| 2 PRESENTED LAST TIME IS ONCE YOU TAKE MCCORQUUDALE, AND ITS 

3 PROGENY AND SAY YOU HAVE GOT TO BE INDIVIDUAL-ORIENTED IN A 

4 CASE AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS OBVIOUSLY CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT, 

< EVEN IF IT WERE PRESENTED WELL. EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS SO 

CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT THAT I DIDN‘T KNOW WHETHER YOU COULD 

EVEN USE THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS IF YOU TAKE WHAT LOCKETT 

SAYS, IN TERMS OF THE INDIVIDUALIZING OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 

vg
 

0 
N
O
 

IF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DECIDES WHAT ESSENTIALLY 

10 THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ACTED LIKE IT WAS TRYING -TO., SPECULATIVE 

11 STATISTICAL MODELS ARE NOT GOING 0 DO BECAUSE CAPITAL 

12 PUNISHMENT IS SO HIGHLY INDIVIDUALIZED. FOR MY PURPOSE OF 

13 DISTRICT COURT. I“M NOT GOING TO MAKE YOU SPEND THIS KIND OF 

( 14 MONEY TO DO THIS. IM GOING TO LET YOU, LET THE FOURTH OR 

15 FIFTH CIRCUIT DECIDE IT BEFORE I MAKE YOU SPEND THIS MONEY. 

16 SOME VERY PERSUASIVE OPINION WHICH AFFECTS THE 

17 UTILITY OF THE APPROACH THAT THE PETITIONER IS TAKING -- 

13 MR. STROUP: ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. 

19 THE COURT: NOT SHOOTING DOWN THE DATA OR THE 

20 MODEL OR WHATEVER. 

21 MR. STROUP: RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. 

22 I HAVE NC TROUBLE WITH THAT. 

23 THE COURT: SO IN SUM, YOU WILL TRY TO FILE 

24 NARROWLY DRAWN NOTICES TQ PRODUCE OF THINGS SUCH AS THE FINAL 

ry
 

1]
 

CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY. AND ANY OTHER COMPUTER-GENERATED       

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

 



  

  

  

0 

  

  

17 

DOCUMENTS WHICH BEAR ON THE ANALYSIS, AND YOU WILL PROPOUND 

INTERROGATORIES SEEKING THEORY. INFORMATION, WHATEVER ELSE, 

AND YOU WILL TRY TO DO THAT IN ABOUT FIFTEEN DAYS. 

AND PETITIONER WILL HAVE THIRTY DAYS TO RESPOND, 

AND THEREAFTER YOU ALL WILL SCHEDULE THE DEPOSITION, LOOK OVER 

WHAT YOU“VE GOT, AND REPORT BACK TO ME. 

MR. DUMICH: YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS SOME MENTION 

ABOUT GOING LIP THERE TD EXAMINE. 

THE COURT: YEAH. AND THAT WAS DELAYED. TOO. 

AND I DON’T UNDERSTAND BOB TD HAVE ANY OBJECTION IN PRINCIFLE 

TO YOUR GOING UP AND SPOTCHECKING THE RAW DATA. AND THE 

UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT YOU WOULD COMPENSATE HIS EXPERT FOR A 

LITTLE TIME, IF YOU TAKE ANY OF HIS TIME, TO EXPLAIN WHAT 

YOU’RE LOOKING AT. 

MR. DUMICH: OKAY. COULD THAT BE DONE AT ANY 

TIME WITHIN THIS PROPOSED 0-DAY PERICD? 

THE COURT: I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD CERTAINLY 

WANT TG DO IT BEFORE HIS DEPOSITION. 

MR. DUMICH: CERTAINLY. 

THE COURT: AND YOU PROBABLY WOULD WANT, WELL, 

ILL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU, WHEN YOU WANT TO DO IT. BUT MOST 

ASSUREDLY. I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WANT TO DO IT BEFORE YOU 

TOOK HIS DEPOSITION. 

HAVE I GOT THE RIGHT CASE. IS IT LOCKETT THAT 

HITS THE STATUTE. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SENTENCING STRUCTURE? 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

W
N
 

N
O
 

t
d
 

  

  

18 

MR. STROUP: YES. ZIR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO. 

MR. DUMICH: YES. SIR. 

I. ONE OTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH BASE 

WITH YOU ON, IF I CAN FIND THAT EXHIBIT IN HERE. 

THE COURT: REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION, BOE. ARE 

THERE ANY, OR THE ONLY NON-2TH AMENDMENT TYPE CLAIM IN THIS 

CASE. THAT“S REALLY OPEN ENDED, IS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 

COUNSEL. IS THAT RIGHT? 

MR. STROUP: I THINK THAT*S CORRECT. YOUR 

HONOR. | 

THE COURT: IS THERE ANYWAY WE COULD DO THAT IN 

THE INTERIM AND GET THAT BEHIND US? 

MR. STROUP: I SEE NO REASON WHY WE COULDN‘T, 

YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: WHAT [DO YOU THINK, NICK? 

MR. DUMICH: YOUR HONOR, THERE WERE TWO ISSUES 

YOU INDICATED YOU WANTED, IN EFFECT. TWQ ISSUES — 

THE COURT: ONE WAS JOHN TURNER NOT LOCKING 

OVER THE REPORT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE SENT TO THE SUPREME 

COURT. 

MR. DUMICH: IF THE COURT WANTS TO HOLD A 

HEARING ON THAT ISSUE DECEMBER 8, WHEN IT WAS SCHEDULED. WHY, 

WE COULD ADDRESS THAT ISSUE ON THAT POINT. 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REFORTER 

  

 



  

  

0 
N
O
 

0 

  

o   

19 

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE AN AFTERNOON OPEN ON THE 

8TH OR 9TH. OR HAVE YOU RESCHEDULED SOMETHING ELSE? 

THE CLERK: WELL. WE HAD THIS HEARING SET FOR 

2:20 ON THE 3TH. 

THE COURT: MY QUESTION TO YOU. YOU HAVEN‘T PUT 

ANYTHING ELSE IN THERE, HAVE YOU? 

THE CLERK: NO. 

THE COURT: I HAVE GOT A PARENTAL 

RESPONSIBILITY BOTH MORNINGS. AND I WOULD LIKE TQ BE ABLE TD 

DO IT IN AN AFTERNCON, IF WE COULD. SEEMS LIKE WE POSSIBLY 

contr i Ee 

IS THAT YOUR OPINION. BOB? 

MR. STROUP: 1 WOULD THINK 30, YOUR HONOR. 

WE DID FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER YOUR EARLIER 

ORDER: AND THAT IS STILL PENDING. 

THE COURT: I HAVEN’T RULED ON THAT —- YOU MEAN 

YOU FILED ONE OTHER THAN THIS ONE? 

MR. STROUP: THATS CORRECT. GOING TO THAT 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM RELATING TO TWO OF THE OTHER 

WITNESSES. 

WHAT WE CONTENDED WAS TURNER-S INEFFECTIVE PURSUIT 

OF AVAILABLE WITNESSES. OTHER AVENUES THAT HE COULD HAVE 

PURSUED THAT HE DID NOT PURSUE. 

THE COURT: IVE GOT SEVERAL PROBLEMZ WITH THAT 

BEYOND WHAT I“VE SAID IN THE ORDER.     

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

 



  

  

LN
 

4)
 

w
e
 

Oy
 

N
o
e
 

  

20 

I THINK THERE IS A GROWING BODY OF OPINION, AND 

PERHAPS JUDICIAL. THAT BASICALLY SAYS YOU/VE GOT TO DO ISSUE 

EXHAUSTION AS WELL AS FACT EXHAUSTICN. AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT 

WE“RE GOING TO FIND OUT. 

IM DOING THIS FOR REASONS WHICH I WON’T SAY 

ON THE RECORD, JUST TO BE QUITE CANDID ABOUT IT, HAVING TO DO 

WITH THE FACT THAT I HAVE NOT OBSERVED A STATE HABEAS JUDGE 

YET TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT YOUR STATISTICAL STUDY. AND I MAY 

FEEL LIKE IN DE FACTO —— WHAT IS THE MAGIC —— THE WORD IS NOT 

FRUITLESS, BUT WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY —- 

MR. DUMICH: FUTILE. 

THE COURT: FUTILE, ON WHAT WE MIGHT CALL MORE 

TRADITIONAL LAW ISSUES, I“VE GOT SOME CONSIDERABLE PROELEM 

WITH THOSE. AS I HAVE DONE IN SOME OTHER CASES IN THE PAST. 

I DON‘T THINK ANYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE THAT 

LAST SUPREME COURT OPINION IS GOING. BUT IT WOULDN“T SURPRISE 

ME A GREAT DEAL TO SEE IT INTERPRETED AS THERE HAVING TO BE 

FACT EXHAUSTION, NOT JUST ISSUE EXHAUSTION. 

AND I KIND OF CUT THE BABY IN HALF HERE TO ALLOW 

YOU TO EXHAUST ON THIS TINY POINT. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME 

YOU ARE WANTING TO OPEN IT WIDER AND WIDER. 

MR. STROUP: WELL, WE“RE STOPPING WHERE WE ARE. 

YOUR HONOR. WE ARE NOT OF THE VIEW ONCE WE GET THE FOOT IN 

THE DOOR WE‘RE GOING TO KEEP ON GOING. ITS, IT IS A MATTER, 

YOUR HONOR, WHERE I THINK. OR PETITIONERS HAVE THE VIEW THAT A     

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

 



  

  

© 
~~

 
0 

0 

  

th
   

21 

HEARING WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. 

WE DIDN‘T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY REALLY TO PURSUE 

THAT ISSUE IN THE STATE HABEAS HEARING. WE WERE TAKEN BY 

SURPRISE WITH JOHN TURNER‘S TESTIMONY IN THAT REGARD, AND ITS 

NOT A QUESTION OF SANDBAGGING. WE WERE TAKEN BY SURPRISE, AND —- 

THE COURT: IN WHAT RESPECT? I DON’T —- 

MR. STROUP: WELL, WE ANTICIPATED HIS TESTIMONY 

TO BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT WAS. 

IT WAS ALSO TESTIMONY THAT WAS IN CONFLICT 

WITH HIS SISTER’S AS TO WHAT HIS EFFORTS WERE. | 

THE COURT: HIS SISTER? 

MR. STROUP: I“M SORRY. WITH THE PETITIONERS 

SISTER. I“M SORRY. 

ON HIS EFFORTS TO FIND WITNESSES FOR THE 

SENTENCING PHASE OF THE TRIAL. AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE 

INTERVENING DECISION OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. WASHINGTON 

VERSUS STRICKLAND, DEPENDING, OF COURSE, ON WHAT THE EN BANC 

DECISION IN THAT CASE SAYS. 

THE STATE HABEAS COURT DID NOT HAVE THAT, THE 

BENEFIT OF WASHINGTON VERSUS STRICKLAND, NOR DID WE. FRANKLY. 

THE COURT: IM NOT SURE WHAT WASHINGTON VERSUS 

STRICKLAND —- 

MR. STROUP: IN TERMS OF OBLIGATION OF DEFENSE 

COUNSEL TO MAKE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF, TO IDENTIFY 

SENTENCING WITNESSES. DO MORE THAN SIMPLY TALK TO THE     

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

 



  

(Q
 

wm
 

0)
 

  

  

22 

PETITIONER. AND OR THE PETITIONER‘S FAMILY, WHEN THERE ARE 

REASONABLE ALTERNATE SOURCES OF WITNESSES KNOWN TO DEFENSE 

COUNSEL. 

THE PANEL DECISION IN WASHINGTON VERSUS 

STRICKLAND FOUND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY DEFENSE 

COUNSELS FAILURE TO PURSUE AVENUES OTHER THAN JUST CONTACTS 

WITH THE FAMILY. 

AND IT”S THAT DECISION THAT WAS SUBSEQUENT 

TO THE STATE HABEAS HEARING. ALSO ON AN ISSUE THAT PETITIONER 

WAS TAKEN BY SURPRISE BY DEFENSE COUNSELS TESTIMONY. 

THE COURT: WHAT DID DEFENSE COUNSEL TESTIFY TO 

WITH RESPECT TO THAT? 

MR. STROUP: WELL, HE SAID, HE SAID THAT HE 

ASKED BOTH PETITIONER AND HIS SISTER REGARDING THE 

AVAILABILITY OF SENTENCING PHASE WITNESSES. 

THE RECORD IS UNCLEAR. THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY 

BUT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME INFERENCES THAT THAT'S ALL 

HE DIL. 

THE COURT: YOU WANT TO SIMPLY ASK HIM IF IN 

ADDITION TO ASKING PETITIONER AND HIS SISTER IF HE THOUGHT 

ABOUT HAVING HIM EXAMINED BY A PSYCHOLOGIST OR GETTING SCHOOL 

RECORDS CR WORK RECORDS, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS? IS THAT WHAT 

YOU“RE GETTING AT? 

MR. STROUP: I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE WITH TURNER 

THE QUESTION OF HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF OTHER 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER : 

  

 



  

  

  

a 
B
E
E
 

B
h
 

EE
 

  

  

23 

PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE —- WE CONTEND —— COULD HAVE PROVIDED HIM 

WITH LEADS ON SENTENCING PHASE WITNESSES. 

I MEAN WE WOULD ALSSC LIKE TO INTRODUCE TESTIMONY 

BY TWO OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE AVAILABLE. WE THINK WERE 

INDEPENDENTLY AVAILABLE. A MINISTER AND THE PETITIONER’S 

EX-WIFE. WHO WE CONTEND TURNER COULD EASILY HAVE CONTACTED, 

WHO HE KNEW ABOUT. AND WHO TURNER DID NOT CONTACT. 

MR. DUMICH: YOUR HONOR. MAY I RESPOND TO SOME 

OF THIS? 

I THINK THIS ISSUE WAS FULLY EXPLORED IN THE 

STATE COURT AS REFLECTED IN THE HABEAS RECORD IN THE TESTIMONY 

OF TURNER, AS TO WHY HE CONTACTED THE PEGPLE HE DID CONTACT. 

AND. YOU KNOW. FOR EXAMPLE. IN REGARDS TO 

THIS MINISTER. I BELIEVE. MY RECOLLECTION, IF MY RECOLLECTION 

SERVES ME. THAT HE CONSULTED WITH PETITIONER“S SISTER AROUT 

HIS CHURCH RELATIONS AND THAT HIS SISTER INDICATED TO MR. 

TURNER THAT PETITIONER HARDLY EVER WENT TO CHURCH. OR DIDNT 

GO TO CHURCH. 

S0 I THINK THERE ARE REASONS STATED IN THE 

STATE HABEAS RECORD BY MR. TURNER TC EXPLAIN WHY HE DID OR DID 

NOT PURSUE CERTAIN WITNESSES IN THE WAY. IN THE WAY HE WENT 

ABOUT PREPARING FOR THE SENTENCING PHASE. 

AND IT-S COUR CONTENTION THIS MATTER HAS ALREADY 

(|FULLY BEEN GONE INTO IN THE STATE COURT. AND NOW THEY“VE COME 

UP WITH A COUPLE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, AND PERHAPS IT MIGHT 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

hoa
, 
F
E
 

I)
 

  

  

24 

HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL FOR THOSE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. BUT WE 

DIDN“T CALL THEM IN THE STATE COURT. BUT. IN FEDERAL COURT. 

THESE OTHER WITNESSES. SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE STATE 

COURT FIRST. 

WHEN I TALKED TO MR. TURNER. AND HE RELATED TO 

ME THE SAME INFORMATION HE TESTIFIED AT TRIAL — I DONT KNOW 

EXACTLY, I WASN‘T PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. STROUP 

AND MR. TURNER —— WHEN MR. STROUP SAYS HE’S SURPRISED BY HIS 

TESTIMONY. I HAVE NO WAY OF REBUTTING THAT. 

BUT I WAS NOT SURPRISED BY MR. TURNER‘S 

TESTIMONY IN STATE COURT. ee 

MR. STROUP: IF I MIGHT JUST RESPOND BRIEFLY. 

I THINK THAT IT IS NEW EVIDENCE, PARTICULARLY 

AS IT RELATES TO THE MINISTER INVOLVED, WHO AS IT TURNS OUT. 

WAS HOW THE PETITIONERS FAMILY CAME TO FIND JOHN TURNER. AND 

I THINK THE WHOLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN TURNER AND THE 

MINISTER IS A RELATIONSHIP WE WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP FOR THE 

RECORD: AND THAT WE THINK FITS IN CLEARLY WITH THE WASHINGTON 

VERSUS STRICKLAND LAW. 

THE COURT: WELL. I“LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE 

RECORD TO SEE. 

BUT LET ME TELL YOU HOW I FEEL. BASED ON WHAT 

YOU/VE SAID TO ME. 

IF STATE HABEAS HAS ALREADY HEARD AEOUT TURNER'S 

DECISIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THESE TWO WITNESSES — 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

  

— 

gal 

  a 

0 
~~
 

OO
 

0 

  

  
rN)

 
a 

MR. STROUP: WELL, —- 

THE COURT: -- THAT MIGHT BE ONE THING. 

IF YOU WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT WHAT HE THOUGHT 

ABOUT CR DID WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER WITNESSES, THAT MIGHT BE 

ANCTHER THING. 

IF I UNDERSTAND YOU. YOU REALLY ARE SAYING 

THAT THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH HE WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THIS NARROW 

WAY, WAS THE FAILURE TO LEARN ABOUT AND CALL THE MINISTER, AND 

WIFE. IS THAT RIGHT =- OR THE EX-WIFE? 

MR. STROUP: WELL. THE MINISTER, WE CONTEND, 

WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FUT HIM IN TOUCH WITH A SUBSTANTIAL 

NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO COME TESTIFY AT THE 

SENTENCING HEARING. 

ITS THE FAILURE TO TALK WITH THE MINISTER 

AND PUT THAT QUESTION TO THE MINISTER THAT IS NOWHERE IN THE 

STATE HABEAS RECORD. | 

AND. AND THE MINISTER’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE 

TURNER WITH NAMES IS NOT IN THE RECORD. | 

I MEAN, ALL OF THAT IS A LINE THAT WAS NOT 

DEVELOPED IN PART BECAUSE WE WERE TAKEN BY SURPRISE BY 

TURNERS TESTIMONY AT THE STATE HABEAS HEARING. 

WE ANTICIPATED IT WOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT 

THAN WHAT IT WAS AS TO HIS PURSUIT OF ANY WITNESSES FOR THE 

SENTENCING PHASE. 

AND IT-S ALSO OF VALUE IN TERMS OF THE PANEL 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

23 

  

  

26 

DECISION IN WASHINGTON VERSUS STRICKLAND. I MEAN TO SHOW THAT 

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FRUITFUL FOR TURNER TO HAVE TALKED WITH 

THIS PERSON. WHO WAS KNOWN TO HIM AND TG THE FAMILY. 

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE WOULD BE SATISFIED 

WITH EXAMINING TURNER. I MEAN THAT WOULD BE USEFUL. BUT IN 

TERMS OF SHOWING PREJUDICE AS WELL, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT 

THE MINISTER WOULD NEED TO EE CALLED ALSO, OR AT LEAST HIS 

AFFIDAVIT EE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD. 

THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW. I DONT WANT TG 

DECIDE IT RIGHT NOW. 

: MAYBE WE OUGHT TO JUST PUT IT ON HOLD. 

MR. STROUP: RIGHT. AND I BRING THAT UP SIMPLY 

AS IT RELATES TO YOUR QUESTIONING REGARDING GOING AHEAD. 

THE COURT: I“M GLAD YOU DID. 

LETS PUT IT, THE WHOLE THING ON HOLD. AND I-LL 

TRY TO DECIDE THAT MOTION. AND WELL KNOW THE EXTENT OF THAT 

HEARING. 

I AM DEEPLY TROUBLED BY THE FACT EXHAUSTION. AND 

IVE GONE ALL OVER THE BOARD MYSELF, AND I“LL JUST HAVE TO SEE 

WHAT THE RECORD SAYS. AND HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT. WHATEVER. 

WELL PUT THIS ON HOLD. WE“LL TAKE IT OFF 

FOR THE 8.» AND NOTIFY YOU IN DUE TIME. 

MR. STROUP: I HAVE ONE SORT OF HOUSEKEEPING 

QUESTION, AND THAT IS. HOW TO HANDLE ARRANGING FOR THE 

PETITIONER TO BE BROUGHT UP WHEN WE DO HAVE A HEARING? 

  

JIM PUGH, CQURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

  

ed
 

al
 

wW
 

a 

24 

25 

  

  

27 

DO I NEED TO DO SOMETHING SEPARATELY. OR —— 

THE COURT: I DON‘T THINK S0. YOU WOULD 

ORDINARILY ISSUE A WRIT FOR HIM, WOULDN‘T YOU? 

THE CLERK: I CAN, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND. THE 

STATE CAN BRING THEM IN NOW. 

1717 

THE COURT: WE CAN ACCOMPLISH IT. 

THE ONLY QUESTION IS DO YOU NEED HIM TO REQUEST 

MR. STROUP: NO. 

MR. DUMICH: ALL I WOULD REQUEST, YOUR HONOR. I 

JUST, A SHORT ONE~SENTENCE ORDER. SAYING. FRODUCE HIM FOR A 

HEARING ON THUS AND SO DAY. 

WRIT. 

THE COURT: WE‘LL GIVE YOU A STANDARD WRIT. 

MR. DUMICH: I LL .HAVE HIM UP HERE FOR THE 

THE COURT: WE CAN TAKE CARE OF YOU. 

MR. STROUP: THANK YOU. 

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. 

  

JIM PUGH. COURT REPORTER 

  

 



  

  

  

L 

MN
 

a 

  

  

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

I, JIM PUGH, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

GEORGIA. DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING 27 PAGES 

CONSTITUTE A TRUE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THE 

SAID COURT HELD IN THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, IN THE 

MATTER THEREIN STATED. Yona 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREQF I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY 

HAND ON THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 19383. 

  

JIM PUGH 
OFFICIAL COURT REFORTER 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

  

JIM PUGH, COURT REPORTER 

  

 



WM-| 

  

p
g
 

J; 
oR, BUAE OF CHA 

CT T0al: CALL 10. 123202 

C
n
t
?
 
N
s
”
 

N
a
e
”
 
N
u
r
 

EIATSORTRN v3 Buon DINGS 
PITA Lo QUIILY 
  

| Qe What is Your Liane? 
As Warren lcClesky. 
a Do 'ycu understand that ycu are char;ed with three counts 

: of Armed Robbery in Base Nc. 12,202 in thls court by an 
Indictment returned by the Grend Jury of Douglas County? 

A. Yes, sir. ! 
Q. Are ycu represented by Mr. Frank Schaffer of Marietta, 

Georg sla, as ycur attorney? 
3, Yes, gir, . 
Q. Are you familiar with the circumstances of the charges 

acainst you? 
A, Yes, siv., 
Q. Haves you been tried and ccnvicted previcusly of these 

charges and sentenced tc life imprisonment? 
De Yes. 

Q. Do you understand that you have a right to a trial by 
B Jury? 

A. Yes. 
Q. Dc you understand that if the court should grant you a 

ienew trial on you.motion that you would be again entitled 
$0 a trial ‘before a jury? : 

A. Yes. ki 

Q. Do you understand that the punishment provided by law for 
armed robbery is death by electrocution, life imprisonrient 
or from one to twenty years imprisonment? 

As Yes, 
Q. Being aware of the nature of the charges, the possible 

punishment and your right to a trial by jury, do you 
now desire to plead guilty to the charges against you? 

A. Yes. 
Qe. Are you in fact guilty of the charges against you cf 

Armed Robbery? 
A. Yes. : 
Q. Have you fully discussed your case with your attorney? 
A. Yes. 
Q. Does your attorney and you agree at to the plea which 

you shculd enter in the case? 
4, Yes, 
Q. Have you been promised any reward or benefit or the hope 

of either to cause you to now plead gullty? 
A. No. : 
Q. Has anyone thrcatened, intimidated, abused or mistreated 

you in any way in order tc cause you to plead gullty? 
A. No, 
Q. Do you understand that the District Attorney has agreed 

and consented to the grant of a new trial in your case 
and that you would again:be entitled to require the 
witnesses against you to be produced, sworn, examined md 
cross-exarined in a trial before a jury? 

A. Yes, 
Q. Should the ccurt accept a plea of gullty on these charges 

' under the elrcumstances, would that plea Le entered frceoly. 
and vcluntarily? 

As Yos. 
Q. Nr. Schaffer, dc you agrce with the answers your client 
has glven Lo tho questions asked him? : 

A, Yos, wo CoO. 

      
 



  

Q. Do elther of you have any reason te Of ror why the court 
i snculd not now accept 2 plea of juiliy end pase sentence 
i in the case? 

Hoe No. 

It is certified that the within anc foregcing is a 

true and correct transcript of prcceedings had in open court 

in the above named and stated riatter on the 21 day of 

Pecember, 1971. 

Usa PN 0 Mad, 
Defendant , = 
  

Pp 
Ti 

= Tor Sy 

DFE trict ATT 

: , fr 
Judge, SG 

  

  

  

  

“Clerk of Court. 

  
    
  

 



[WM-2_ 

  

Ca 

yA 
A 

4 * 

pl \ { 3 77 1 al 7 ’ J ? ~{ (“ . = Bak 27 Tus / ary ooh ~, E52 .p 8 % , Rll / ; : & —- "/ 7 - 7 Fi we + z eK 2 ool { be Vou i | a fin PR ov 

7 
» 

Cheeni rr, 
[ 

3 ws ie ET Ceo 17202 

  
    

    
  

STR TE J a 

pen re IRE 
| Thi 15¢0 5 gm 7%: tif of 

  

3 Gate 
AM Qtbeife } Fells Greens; Leerngel, SET ee l

e
a
.
 

h
 

~~
. 

y 
i 

PA
s YA

 Fy ~ T
Y
 » 

L
z
,
 
p
a
p
a
 

| 

r
e
 

5
 L IN | 

C 
o
y
 

| 
d
a
 : } | u 3 d Yog Hae 

a oe cos) seanele gunned «e 

 



  

/. £: 2 —i 

py) 7 ZA) 3 ; > a ol 

in 2 | 

SA 
Bre 

Fir 

/L A nit 
i 

A 
/ =x 

Foi 
bles 

; Li 
: 

a 2 

: | FN 

a Cr t [AV We ip : 

| 4:3 thos 
; 

E g Ar % 
¥ : ot “Sofi 5 

i 

2 Peds 
wil J anol fol afisk Polo. Aw 

ee & 
; wo B el tiny fo 

ic oy 7 

hm the 99% i! Cg 

He ) defor. of ie He 1 dniiny ol. Lon dis tn 
      

  

  

Conn 

5. 
oh b= Tog 

Ie ond] we 

Anal   

  7 dr anion. Simi mi md eudivm 

lr 

oy a i