Northern District of Georgia, No. C81-2434 - Federal Habeas Exhibits Vol. 2 of 2
Working File
September 29, 1983
140 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, McCleskey Background Materials. Northern District of Georgia, No. C81-2434 - Federal Habeas Exhibits Vol. 2 of 2, 1983. c5334fcc-62a7-ef11-8a69-6045bdd667da. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6ccacbf5-d6a7-41ee-ae3a-97a8ab5b5264/northern-district-of-georgia-no-c81-2434-federal-habeas-exhibits-vol-2-of-2. Accessed May 19, 2025.
Copied!
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