Supreme Court Re-Elects Chief Justice Drowota to Four Year Term
Chief Justice Frank F. Drowota, III, of Nashville has been re-elected by the Tennessee Supreme Court to a four-year term ending Aug. 31, 2006.
“I am honored to have been chosen by my colleagues to serve as chief justice,” he said. “I have the highest respect for their intellectual integrity, enthusiasm, work ethic and commitment to service. We have a great Supreme Court and I look forward to serving as chief justice because the members of this court work so well together. I hope to continue to lead the court in its commitment to remaining accessible and, in doing so, give the citizens of Tennessee a better understanding of the judicial system, and I hope, greater confidence in the courts. The present members of the court have been together for over four years, and in my 22 years on the Supreme Court, this is the most collegial and accessible court on which I have served.
"In carrying out the administrative responsibilities of chief justice, I look forward to continuing to work with the strong leadership and staff of the Administrative Office of the Courts as we attempt to modernize Tennessee’s court system to make it more responsive to the needs of all Tennesseans."
Drowota, 64, is the longest-serving member of the Tennessee Judicial Conference, which includes the state’s 178 trial and appellate judges. He was president of the conference in 1979-80. His judicial career started in 1970 when he was appointed by Gov. Buford Ellington to the Chancery Court of Davidson County. In 1974, Gov. Winfield Dunn appointed him to the state Court of Appeals where he remained until his 1980 election to the Supreme Court. He first served as chief justice of the Supreme Court in 1989-90 and was elected last year to fill the unexpired term of Justice Riley Anderson, who stepped down as chief justice, but remained on the court.
“I have served with 12 different justices over the past two decades and this is a very special court,” Drowota said. “It is the most diverse court in our state’s 200 year history. The diversity of ideas and points of view have made it exceptional and given us strength.”
Drowota is married to the former Claire Hooper. They have two children, Helen Drowota Close and Dr. Frank R. Drowota, and three grandchildren. He is active in legal and civic organizations, including having served on the boards of directors for the YMCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, Cumberland Museum & Science Center, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, Children’s House, Opportunity House, the Bill Wilkerson Speech and Hearing Center and the Disciples Divinity House. He has served as president of the Nashville Rotary Club and the Nashville area chapter of the American Red Cross. He is a trustee of Montgomery Bell Academy, where he attended school, the Dantzler Bond Ansley Fund and The Frist Foundation.
Drowota earned his undergraduate and law degrees at Vanderbilt University. He later served as a Naval officer aboard the aircraft carrier USS Shangri-la and was commanding officer for a local reserve unit. He retired after 27 years of active and reserve military service and is a member of the Naval Reserve Association. He is an Elder of Woodmont Christian Church, where his father was the church’s founding minister and served that congregation for 30 years before his retirement.
(05/14/2002)
Supreme Court Affirms Death Sentences in Double Murder for Hire Case
The death sentences a Nashville man received for hiring a friend to murder his wife and mother-in-law were upheld Tuesday by the Tennessee Supreme Court in a majority opinion written by Justice William M. Barker. The court unanimously affirmed the aggravated robbery and premeditated first degree murder convictions of William R. Stevens, while four of the five justices agreed with the Court of Criminal Appeals and upheld the two death sentences jurors imposed for the 1997 killings during a staged burglary.
Stevens offered to pay 18-year-old Corey Milliken $5,000 to murder 45-year-old Sandra Jean Stevens, who was strangled to death, and her mother, 75-year-old Myrtle Wilson, who was stabbed and strangled . Evidence presented at his trial indicated that Stevens was having marital problems and did not want to suffer the financial hardships of a divorce. In planning the murders, the defendant told Milliken to take jewelry and other specified items from the family’s trailer home to make it appear that the murders were committed as part of a burglary.
“In fact, he took Milliken on a walk-through of the trailer and he specified which items were to be stolen, which items were to be 'trashed', and which items were to remain untouched, such as 'the TV and the dishes and (his) Star Trek collection,' ” Barker wrote. “The defendant also instructed Milliken on how he was to get rid of the evidence...”
During the sentencing phase of Stevens’ trial, jurors found there were two aggravating circumstances as defined by state law - a previous conviction for a violent felony, second degree murder, and his use of a hired killer. The jury determined that the aggravating circumstances
outweighed mitigating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced Stevens to death for the murder of each victim. As a repeat violent offender, he also received life without parole for the aggravated robbery charge. Mitigating evidence presented at his trial included testimony that Stevens was a good father to his son from a previous marriage and that he had a reputation as a hard worker.
In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., said he has “grave concerns” about the procedure used by the court to determine whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate to penalties imposed in similar cases. Birch cited previous opinions in which he said the comparative proportionality review protocol does not fulfill statutory requirements.
“Because I have not detected any meaningful effort to address and rectify my concerns, I respectfully dissent from the imposition of the penalty of death in this case,” he wrote.
In the majority opinion, Barker said the court identified and reviewed cases “involving circumstances similar to the crime in this case” and concluded that the death sentence was not disproportionate or arbitrarily applied.
The majority also found the issues raised by Stevens in his automatic direct appeal were without merit. Under state law, all death sentences must be reviewed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. In his appeal, Stevens alleged that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the testimony of a crime scene expert employed by the defense; that the trial court erred by excluding testimony by Corey Milliken’s foster father concerning prior bad acts; that certain trial court rulings were unfair and biased; and that the death sentences were disproportionate to sentences in similar cases. Although the Supreme Court agreed that the trial court should have allowed the foster father’s testimony, the exclusion was found to be “harmless error.” The court also found other issues raised by Stevens were without merit.
“The record in this case contains substantial, indeed overwhelming, evidence of the defendant’s guilt,” Barker wrote. “...In conclusion, after a thorough review of the record and relevant legal authorities, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we have determined that the defendant’s allegations of error are without merit.”
The court set an execution date of Sept. 13, 2002, “unless otherwise ordered by this court or proper authority.” Stevens has statutorily established state and federal appeals remaining.
(05/07/2002)
Supreme Court Upholds Death Sentences
A majority of the Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the first degree murder convictions and death sentences of James Henderson Dellinger and Gary Wayne Sutton for the 1992 Blount County murder of Tommy Mayford Griffin.
"We have reviewed all of the issues raised by the defendants and conclude that they do not warrant relief," Justice Janice Holder wrote for the majority in the opinion filed Tuesday.
Jurors convicted Dellinger and Sutton for shooting Griffin in the back of the neck with a 12-gauge shotgun following an argument. They also had been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Griffin's sister, Connie Branam, whose body was discovered in her burned vehicle.
Writing a separate concurring/dissenting opinion, Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., agreed with the majority's opinion affirming the convictions, but would reverse the death sentences. Birch said he has "grave concerns" about the proportionality analysis used by the majority.
"I have not detected any meaningful effort to address and rectify these concerns," Birch wrote, citing numerous other cases in which he had dissented on similar grounds. "I do not believe that the court is properly fulfilling its statutory obligation to determine whether ‘the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases.'"
Writing for the majority, Holder said the court had conducted "an exhaustive review" of the records in similar cases before concluding that the sentences of death for Dellinger and Sutton are not disproportionate.
Birch also was "deeply concerned" that the trial judge declined to answer a question from the jury about the amount of prison time the defendants would serve if they received life sentences.
"There seems to be, in my view, a substantial probability that the jury returned a death sentence not because it thought death to be an appropriate punishment for the defendants' crimes, but because it wrongly believed that a life sentence would allow the defendants to go free after a short amount of time," he said.
Birch cited studies indicating that capital jurors often underestimate the time a defendant actually will serve if sentenced to life, and said the studies suggest that jurors who hold such misconceptions are more likely to impose death sentences. He opined that the Tennessee Constitution should be interpreted as mandating "that the jury . . . should have been informed of the minimum time the defendants would have to serve before being eligible for parole and the probability, based on comparison to other first degree murder cases, that the defendants would be released upon initial eligibility for parole."
The majority concluded that the trial judge complied with prior federal and state rulings when he refused to answer the question concerning the length of a life sentence. Holder cited and reaffirmed a prior state court decision which held that "instructing the jury on such specific sentencing information could result in sentences of death based on sheer speculation and on factors not enumerated by statute and not sanctioned under the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution."
"We continue to adhere to this proposition and agree with the trial court's refusal to answer the jury's question in this case," she wrote.
In their direct appeal, Dellinger and Sutton also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury at sentencing that they are human beings. They said this was a proper mitigation instruction because a prison guard testified they are "deserving of respect as human beings."
In rejecting the claim, Holder wrote, "The fact that Dellinger and Sutton are human beings is not relevant mitigating evidence. All criminal defendants are human beings. That fact, therefore, does not relate to the uniqueness of the individual defendant. Moreover, the species of the defendants does not bear on their character or prior record, or the circumstances of the offense. Nor did the prosecutor in any way question the fact that the defendants are human beings."
Other issues addressed in the opinion and found to be without merit were whether the indictments violated the United States Constitution; whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the defendants separate trials or separate juries; whether the trial court erred in dismissing a jury selection expert; whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the identity of the defendants in prior convictions must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; whether evidence seized from Dellinger's residence under a search warrant should have been suppressed; and whether the state's evidence was sufficient to establish the "prior violent felony" aggravating circumstance in seeking the death penalty.
(04/26/2002)
Only One Attorney Applies for Judicial Vacancy, Application Process Reopens
With just one applicant to fill a Circuit Court vacancy in the 31st Judicial District, the state Judicial Selection Commission has cancelled a scheduled May 1 meeting and reopened the application process. The meeting to interview applicants and recommend names to Gov. Don Sundquist will be rescheduled, said Connie Clark, administrative director of the courts.
Tennessee Code Annotated spells out the procedure for filling trial court vacancies. Under the code, the governor appoints one of the applicants nominated by the 17-member Judicial Selection Commission."
Attorneys hoping to succeed retiring Judge Charles Haston must apply by the end of the business day May 17, the new deadline. Applicant questionnaires are available from the Administrative Office of the Courts, 511 Union Street, Suite 600, Nashville, TN 37219. Applications also are available on the court system website at www.tsc.state.tn.us or by calling the AOC at 615-741-2687.
Haston, a judge since 1974, announced he will retire effective May 1.
Voters in the 31st Judicial District, including Van Buren and Warren counties,
will choose a permanent successor in the August general election to fill the
unexpired term ending Aug. 31, 2006.
(04/25/2002)
Supreme Court Sets Standards for Foreign Language Interpreters
Foreign language court interpreters will be tested, credentialed and required to follow an ethics code addressing issues such as accuracy, impartiality, professional demeanor and confidentiality for the first time under two rules adopted Thursday by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
“This rule recognizes that for most people living in the United States, English is their native language, or they have learned to read, speak and understand English,” the court said in Supreme Court Rule 42. “There are others for whom English is not their primary language. For them, language can be a barrier to understanding and exercising their legal rights and to securing access to the judicial system.”
The new rules setting standards and establishing professional ethics were designed to help provide equal access to the courts for users who have a limited ability to speak or understand the English language, Chief Justice Frank Drowota said. Previously, there were no standards for interpreters, he said.
Tennessee experienced a 278 percent increase in its Hispanic and Latino populations and a 78 percent increase in the Asian population between the 1990 and 2000 censuses. Because of the state’s changing makeup, the Tennessee Judicial Council in 1997 recommended establishment of minimum qualifications and a code of professional responsibility for interpreters. In response, the Administrative Office of the Courts, using a Byrne grant, contracted with the Tennessee Foreign Language Institute to develop standards and conduct workshops and testing for prospective interpreters. The AOC also joined the National Center for State Courts’ Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification Program to access tests for the certification process. Since training started, more than 200 have attended the workshops and nearly 100 have been tested or registered to take the written ethics examination. Oral testing will begin in May.
“It is essential that the... communication barrier be removed, as far as possible, so that these persons are placed in the same position as similarly situated persons for whom there is no such barrier,” the preamble to Supreme Court Rule 41 says. “As officers of the court, interpreters help assure that such persons may enjoy equal access to justice and that court proceedings and court support services function efficiently and effectively.”
Under the rules, judges may decide whether a participant in a legal proceeding requires an interpreter. If an interpreter is needed, the judge must first attempt to appoint one who is state certified, meaning the interpreter has no felony convictions or any misdemeanor convictions involving dishonesty or false statement; has attended an approved ethics and skill-building workshop; has passed a written examination with a score of at least 70 percent; and has passed an approved oral performance examination. The rules also require interpreters to take an oath before participating in a legal proceeding, swearing to interpret accurately, completely and impartiality.
If a state certified interpreter is not available, the judge must then attempt to appoint a registered interpreter who has met all of the requirements except passing an oral performance examination. A non-credentialed interpreter may be used only “upon a finding that diligent, good faith efforts to obtain the certified or registered interpreter” have been made. The judge also must evaluate the gravity of the judicial proceeding and potential penalty or consequence before using a non- credentialed interpreter.
In most cases payments for interpreters are added to court costs, although indigent criminal defendants may have state-paid interpreters to help them communicate with their attorneys. The rate of compensation is up to the judges, but a suggested minimum hourly rate is $50 for certified; $40 for registered; and $30 for non-credentialed.
The new rules are among several steps the Supreme Court and AOC have taken to help provide equal access to justice and eliminate communication barriers. Videos in Kurdish, Russian, Vietnamese, Spanish, Arabic and Laotian have been produced, using grant funds, explaining basic rights of defendants; how to obtain orders of protection; and the rights of parents in child abuse and neglect cases. Judges also have been provided with court forms in the same languages. The forms and other translated materials are available on the court system website at www.tsc.state.tn.us.
(04/17/2002)
600 Area Students Participate in Tennessee Supreme Court Project
High school students from Cocke, Grainger, Jefferson and Sevier counties will participate May 2 in a state Supreme Court program designed to educate young Tennesseans about the judicial branch of government.
The 600 students and their teachers from 10 public and private schools will attend a special Supreme Court session at the Sevier County Courthouse where justices will hear oral arguments in three actual cases. Following oral arguments, students will meet for question and answer sessions with attorneys who presented each side in their cases.
All participating students and teachers also will join the Supreme Court for lunch at the Boys and Girls Club of the Smoky Mountains. During lunch and a brief program, students will be seated at tables with the five Supreme Court justices, local judges and attorneys, city, county and school officials.
Chancellor Telford Forgety, Jr., of Dandridge, presiding judge in the 4th Judicial District, is coordinating the project. Schools participating in SCALES - an acronym for the Supreme Court Advancing Legal Education for Students – are Gatlinburg Pittman High School, Pigeon Forge High School, Sevier County High School, Seymour High School, Cocke County High School, Cosby High School, Rutledge High School, Washburn School, The Kings Academy and Jefferson County High School.
The court also will sit April 30 at Carson-Newman College in Jefferson City to hear one case as part of the school’s Sesquicentennial Celebration. The oral argument in Gentry Auditorium of the Henderson Building begins at 1:30 p.m. The case involves custody of a child.
Teachers whose classes are involved in the May 2 SCALES Project attended a three-hour professional development session March 25. Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge Patricia J. Cottrell of Nashville discussed the state and federal court systems, answered questions and presented an overview of the three cases to be argued when students attend SCALES. Teachers also were provided with notebooks of materials to use in their classrooms, including suggested activities, and SCALES Project handbooks for each student.
"The Tennessee Supreme Court believes that knowledge and understanding of the judicial branch of government are essential to good citizenship,” Chief Justice Frank Drowota said. “The SCALES Project is designed to educate young participants about the system they will inherit. The interaction we have with the students at lunch and throughout the day also renews our faith that our nation’s future is in good hands.”
Local judges and attorneys met with participating teachers at the professional development session to schedule classroom visits to review the cases and issues to be considered by the Supreme Court. After justices rule in the cases, copies of the court's opinions will be provided to the classes.
"The SCALES Project is important because it creates a partnership between the judiciary, the Bar and schools to promote a better understanding of the judicial branch of government," the chief justice said. "We hope that teachers will use the materials to make judicial education a continuing part of their curriculum."
Issues in the cases students will hear include whether a convicted murderer was denied effective assistance of counsel before and at his trial; whether a death row inmate was denied his right against self-incrimination; and whether the trial court incorrectly allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal convictions during his trial for murder, robbery and kidnaping.
Including SCALES in the 4th Judicial District, more than 9,600 Tennessee
students across the state have taken part in the project since the Supreme
Court initiated it in 1995.
Judicial Selection Commission Meeting May 1
The state Judicial Selection Commission will meet May 1 in
McMinnville for a public hearing and to interview applicants hoping to succeed
retiring Circuit Court Judge Charles Haston in the 31st Judicial District,
including Van Buren and Warren counties. The meeting, beginning at 9 a.m., will
be in the Tennessee Room at the Holiday Inn Express, 809 Sparta Street. During
the public hearing portion of the meeting, the 17-member commission will
consider written and oral comments concerning applicants, who also may address
the members.
Applications to fill the interim judicial position are available from the Administrative Office of the Courts, 511 Union Street, Suite 600, Nashville 37219 or by calling Lisa Hazlett at 615-741-2687. The original and 18 copies must be submitted to the commission through the Administrative Office of the Courts by the end of the business day April 22.
Under state law, the Judicial Selection Commission will submit three names to Gov. Don Sundquist, who may appoint one of the recommended applicants. Chief Justice Frank Drowota, working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, will designate judges to hear cases in the 31st Judicial District from May 1 until the vacancy is filled, said Cornelia Clark, administrative director of the courts. She said Haston also will conclude some cases after May 1.
Deadline Set to Apply for Judicial Appointment
Attorneys hoping to become interim successor to retiring Circuit Court Judge Charles Haston in the 31st Judicial District, including Van Buren and Warren counties, must apply by the end of the business day April 22 to be considered, Cornelia Clark, administrative director of the courts, said Tuesday. Haston, a judge since 1974, announced he will retire effective May 1.
Voters will choose a permanent successor in the August general election to fill Haston's unexpired term ending Aug. 31, 2006. Applications to fill the interim judicial position are available from the Administrative Office of the Courts, 511 Union Street, Suite 600, Nashville 37219 or by calling Lisa Hazlett at 615-741-2687.
The original and 18 copies must be submitted to the commission through the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Under state law, the 17-member Judicial Selection Commission will meet within 60 days of the May 1 vacancy to conduct a public hearing and interview applicants for the interim appointment. The commission will submit three names to Gov. Don Sundquist, who may appoint one of the recommended applicants.
Clark said her office is working with the commission to set a meeting date which will be as soon as possible after May 1. The commission meeting and public hearing will be in McMinnville, she said.
"Anyone who wishes to serve the remaining four years of the unexpired term must file as a candidate for election, notwithstanding what happens in the appointment process," Clark said.
Chief Justice Frank Drowota, working with the Administrative Office of
the Courts, will designate judges to hear cases in the 31st Judicial District
from May 1 until the vacancy is filled, Clark said.(04/02/2002)
Knox County Students Participate in Court of Appeals Program
The Eastern Section of the state Court of Appeals is going back to high school. But this time the court will be doing the teaching for 150 Knox County students.
On April 15, for the first time, the court will hear oral argument in four actual cases on a high school campus. The half-day session at Knoxville Catholic High School on Fox Lonas Road is part of the court’s new CASE Project. CASE is an acronym for Court of Appeals Affecting Student Education.
“CASE is the court’s effort to reach out to students who have an interest in government and law,” said Houston M. Goddard of Maryville, presiding judge of the 12-member intermediate appellate court. “The court believes students can benefit from this real-life experience.”
Judge Goddard will preside over the Court of Appeals panel hearing the cases. He will be joined by Judges Charles D. Susano, Jr., and D. Michael Swiney, both of Knoxville. The Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from trial courts in civil, or non-criminal, cases.
Students from Knoxville Catholic High School, Webb School of Knoxville and Christian Academy of Knoxville will attend the court’s half-day session. Each school selected 50 students to participate.
Judge Goddard said the court selected cases it thought would be of interest to the students. They will hear oral argument in a lawsuit by a teacher against a school board; a personal injury case against a fast-food restaurant; a breach of contract case; and a lawsuit by a stepfather attempting to terminate the parental rights of a biological father.
As part of the CASE Project, law clerks who work for the appellate judges will go to the schools the week before oral argument to brief the students about the appellate process and the cases they will be hearing. The week after court, the law clerks will return to the schools to debrief the students and answer questions. When the cases are decided by the court, in four to six weeks, copies of the written opinions will be furnished to the students.
Immediately following the court session, a buffet lunch, sponsored by the Knoxville Bar Association and Crown Cleaners of Knoxville, will be served for participating students.
A second CASE Project will be conducted in the fall at Fulton High School in Knoxville, with other Knox County public schools also participating.