(03/24/2003)
Tennessee Taking First Step to Assist Pro Se Court Users
A federal grant is making it possible for Tennessee to join a growing number of states exploring how to improve access to justice for pro se litigants - those doing business in courts without the assistance of lawyers.
The Administrative Office of the Courts applied for the $20,000 State Justice Institute (SJI) grant to sponsor a pro se summit for judges, lawyers, court clerks, pro se litigants and court personnel. Surveys will be conducted by the 50 participants to identify major barriers confronted by pro se litigants in Tennessee.
Just like many other states, Tennessee has experienced a growth in the number of self-represented litigants,Administrative Office of the Courts director Connie Clark wrote in a letter to SJI requesting the grant.These litigants create challenges for the judiciary and court personnel. While many states have offered extensive services, such as self-help centers, family law facilitators, pro se clinics and technology-based assistance, Tennessee has yet to provide such services.
Summit participants will be nominated by organizations such as the Tennessee Bar Association, Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services, Tennessee Judicial Conference, Tennessee General Sessions Judges Conference and Tennessee Clerks of Court Conference. Pro se litigant participants from each grand division of the state will be selected by consulting legal services offices, advocacy groups and judges, Clark wrote.
In the past few years, court systems across the nation, along with court-related associations, have been focusing on how to eliminate barriers to justice faced by self-represented litigants. In some states, access to forms and information is available through online self-help centersJudges, clerks and other court personnel also are receiving training on how to assist pro se litigants without violating prohibitions against giving legal advice. Self- help centers, with forms, telephones, copying machines, fax machines and other assistance, have been established in courthouses and other locations.
In 1999, 49 states were represented at a National Conference on Pro Se Litigation conducted by the American Judicature Society. State teams set goals and time lines at the meeting and later reported their progress. Among those with active pro se projects are Florida, New Mexico, Massachusetts and California, which conducted state and regional conferences.
The State Justice Institute is a non-profit organization established by federal law to improve the quality of justice in state courts, facilitate better coordination between state and federal courts and foster solutions to common problems.
(02/12/2003)Sexton Appointed to 23rd Judicial District
Governor Phil Bredesen today announced that George C.
Sexton will fill the vacant seat in the 23rd Judicial District. Sexton
is currently
General Sessions and Juvenile Court Judge for Stewart County and City Judge for
Dover and Cumberland City, Tennessee. He is also in solo private practice.
Sexton replaces Judge Allen W. Wallace. "I am pleased that Judge Sexton has
accepted the position," Bredesen said. "He has high standards of conduct and
integrity, an excellent reputation as a lawyer and judge and has served his
state and country in a variety of roles." Sexton has sat on the bench since
1998. He served as Assistant District Attorney for the 23rd Judicial District
from August 1983 to September 1, 1998. He also served as Assistant District
Attorney for child support enforcement for the 21st Circuit (now the 23rd
Judicial District) from February 1983 to August 1983. This marks Bredesen's
first judicial appointment since taking office January 18. "I'm just so proud
Governor Bredesen selected me," Judge Sexton said. "I hope to bring fairness
and respect to the system." Judge Sexton attended Austin Peay State University
from 1975 until 1978 and received a Bachelor of Science degree in political
science. He attended the University Of Tennessee School Of Law where he
received a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. Since 1998, Judge Sexton has served
as a member of the Tennessee General Sessions Judges Conference. He also served
as a member of the District Attorney Generals Conference from 1983 to 1998.
Judge Sexton served in the United States Army from 1971 to 1974, and was
decorated with the Good Conduct Medal and the National Defense Medal, among
others. He was honorably discharged as a Sergeant E-5. Judge Sexton resides in
Dover with his wife, Karen and a son and daughter. Judge Wallace retired from
the 23rd Judicial District to take senior status.
(01/31/2003)
Supreme Court Denies Death Penalty Appeal Without Comment
The Tennessee Supreme Court has denied a post-conviction appeal filed by Stephen Michael West, who was sentenced to death for the 1986 murders of a Union County mother and daughter.
In an order filed Friday, the court without comment turned down the application to appeal. The order leaves in place a Sept. 6, 2002, Court of Criminal Appeals decision which rejected issues raised by West. A trial court also denied his effort to reopen post conviction proceedings.
West was convicted of kidnaping and stabbing to death Wanda Romines and her daughter Sheila Romines, who also was raped. Both women were stabbed multiple times and suffered numerous “torture” wounds, according to testimony at West’s trial. West was convicted of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of aggravated kidnaping and one count of aggravated rape. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in 1989. Ronnie Martin, who also participated in the crimes, was tried and convicted separately.
In his petition to appeal, West contended that he should be allowed to
raise a constitutional issue that was not recognized at the time of trial. He
argued in his petition that a 2000 United States Supreme Court decision,
Apprendi v. New Jersey, established a new constitutional right that
would invalidate his death sentence. In denying his appeal, the trial and
appellate courts rejected West’s argument and said the Apprendi
decision did not apply to his case. In part, West argued that under
Apprendi, the statutorily defined aggravating factors jurors used to
sentence him to death should have been included by prosecutors in the
indictment against him.
(01/10/2003)
Appellate Courts Moving to Historic Post Office Building
The Tennessee Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of
Criminal Appeals and Appellate Court Clerk's Office will move into this
historic United States Post Office Building in Knoxville.
In remarks at an open house, Justice E. Riley Anderson thanked the
City of Knoxville, Knox County and others for "their significant contributions"
to the building’s restoration. The judicial branch will lease 46,000
square feet from owner Samuel J. Furrow, who will use a $500,000 historic
preservation grant for renovations. The space includes a large former federal
courtroom on the second floor. The Tennessee appellate courts, clerk's office
and library, with about 50 employees, have 32,000 square feet in their present
Knoxville building, which is in serious need of repairs. The first home of the
Supreme Court in Knoxville was in a tavern, Anderson said. Later the court
moved to a log cabin rented for $30 a year. The state’s three appellate
courts hear cases in Knoxville, Nashville and Jackson.
(Photo courtesy of the Knoxville News-Sentinel)
The Tennessee Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of Criminal Appeals and Appellate Court Clerk's Office will move this year from cramped quarters in the Knoxville Supreme Court Building on Locust Street to the historic United States Post Office Building on Main Street.
The State Building Commission has approved the move, tentatively set for July 1, after nearly a decade of discussion and debate about possible sites to house the courts, clerk's office and legal library. The Supreme Court is mandated by the state Constitution to sit in Knoxville, Nashville and Jackson. The other appellate courts sit in panels of three to hear cases in the three locations.
"This move is positive for everyone involved and it is due in large measure to the diligence and hard work of Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Gary Wade of Sevierville and the cooperation of the owner, Samuel J. Furrow, who helped make it happen," said Justice E. Riley Anderson of Knoxville, who first proposed the building and has been involved since the project started. "Under this plan, the beautiful historic building will be saved and renovated, the courts will have the space they desperately need and the city and county will have the opportunity to purchase the building we presently occupy and adjacent property, which is across from the new convention center."
(01/07/2003)
Deadline Set to Apply for Judicial Appointment
Attorneys interested in filling a 23rd Judicial District vacancy being created by the retirement of Circuit Court Judge Allen Wallace must apply by the end of the business day Jan. 23 to be considered, Cornelia Clark, administrative director of the courts, said Tuesday. The district includes Cheatham, Dickson, Houston, Humphreys and Stewart counties.
Wallace has agreed to serve as one of four senior judges in the state effective Feb. 1, Clark said. Senior judges are appointed by the Tennessee Supreme Court to two or four-year terms. The retired trial and appellate court judges may be assigned on a temporary basis to any state court.
Applications to succeed Wallace as Circuit Court judge 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. Applications also can be downloaded and printed from the court system website at www.tsc.state.tn.us. The original and 18 copies must be submitted to the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission through the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The 17-member commission will meet at 9 a.m. Feb. 6 at the Renaissance Center in Dickson to conduct a public hearing and interview applicants. The commission will submit three names to incoming Gov. Phil Bredesen, who may appoint one of the recommended applicants. The position will then be on the ballot in 2004, the next biennial August election, to fill out the remainder of the full eight-year term ending in 2006.
(01/06/2003)
Supreme Court Affirms Death Sentence In 3-2 Decision
The death sentence Gerald Powers received for killing a Memphis woman in1996 was affirmed Monday in a 3-2 decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court, with justices divided over whether trial testimony by the defendant’s wife should have been allowed.
In an opinion written by Justice Janice M. Holder, and joined by Chief Justice Frank F. Drowota and Justice E. Riley Anderson, the majority concluded that the trial court properly allowed the defendant’s wife, Sharon Powers, to testify against her husband about statements he made to her admitting his guilt.
A jury convicted Powers of first degree murder for killing Shannon Sanderson. Powers also was convicted of aggravated robbery for stealing money the victim had won gambling in Tunica, MS, and jewelry she was wearing at the time he abducted and killed her. During the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors found that three statutorily defined aggravating factors, including prior convictions for violent crimes, outweighed mitigating evidence presented by the defense, qualifying Powers for a death sentence.
Powers was in the same casino as the victim and saw her win $5,000 playing blackjack. He followed her back to Memphis, kidnapped her from a driveway and drove her to an abandoned house in Mississippi where he shot her to death. She also suffered at least one blow to her face resulting in a fractured jaw and other injuries.
He later confessed to his wife that he had kidnapped, robbed and killed Sanderson and said he had buried the stolen money in the back yard. He also told her where he had hidden the victim’s jewelry. In his appeal, Powers said his wife’s testimony concerning his disclosures to her should have been excluded under a state law providing that “confidential communications between married persons are privileged and inadmissible if either spouse objects.”
In the majority opinion, Holder reviewed the history of spousal disqualification from testifying and confidential marital communications and explained that a 1978 Court of Criminal Appeals case, Adams v. State, limited the confidential marital communications privilege to situations where the communications originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed; the element
of confidentiality is essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties; the relationship is one which, in the opinion of the community, ought to be sedulously fostered; and the injury to the relationship by disclosure of the communications would be greater than the benefit gained by the disclosure for the correct disposal of litigation.
In a 1993 case, State v. Hurley, the Tennessee Supreme Court “endorsed the application of the four Adams factors to determine whether a marital communication is privileged,” Holder wrote. Two years after Hurley, the general assembly amended state law to specifically prohibit testimony concerning confidential communications if either spouse objects, but the 1995 amendment did not mention the four Adams factors. Powers claimed that the Adams factors were abolished by the 1995 law and that his wife should not have been allowed to testify concerning his statements to her about the crime.
Writing for the majority, Holder rejected this argument, stating that the “best expression of the legislative purpose and intent is the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used by the Legislature within the four corners of the statute.” Holder said that the language used in the 1995 amendment does not indicate that the legislature intended to abolish the Adams factors. Holder also noted that in 2000, the legislature again amended the law to specifically include the four conditions spelled out in Adams and endorsed in Hurley. Holder concluded that the trial court properly allowed the defendant’s wife to testify because the communications were not privileged when the Adams factors were applied.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice William M. Barker wrote that the evidence against Powers was overwhelming, even without his wife’s testimony. However, Barker said he is “unwilling to affirm a criminal conviction based upon a flawed interpretation of the marital communication privilege” as it was in the 1995 law. Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., concurred in the dissenting opinion.
“The plain language of the 1995 statute does not require the defendant to satisfy any particular elements to invoke the privilege, other than to object to a spouse testifying to confidential communications,” Barker wrote. “. . . Without some language to this effect, I do not believe that we can reasonably presume that the legislature intended for these particular Adams/Hurley elements to be embodied in the 1995 statute.”
He described the language in the 1995 law as “straightforward” and said the legislature did not intend to incorporate the four conditions required under Adams and Hurley for spousal privilege.
“In my view, the 2000 amendments represent not only ?material changes’ to the statute, but they are so completely different from the 1995 version of the statute that I am at a loss to understand how the majority views the 2000 amendments as mere ?clarifications’ to the 1995 statute,” he wrote.
Because Barker and Birch concluded the testimony of Powers’ wife would have been barred under the 1995 law, they would reverse his convictions and order a new trial.
“Although there was other evidence linking the defendant to the crime, the key direct evidence . . . were the incriminating statements made by Mrs. Powers,” Barker wrote. “This evidence was overwhelming and warrants a reversal of the defendant’s convictions and a new trial.”
However, the majority said none of the issues raised by Powers warrant relief and “the evidence supports the jury’s finding” that he was eligible to receive a death sentence. Also, Holder wrote, the sentence was not disproportionate to the penalty imposed for similar crimes in Tennessee. The majority opinion affirms a Court of Criminal Appeals decision in the case.