Term limits adopted by Shelby County voters for certain elected local officials are legal and constitutional, the Tennessee Supreme Court said in a unanimous decision filed Wednesday.
Under the Supreme Court ruling, plaintiffs in the case who have served two terms on the Shelby County Board of Commissioners will not be eligible to run in upcoming primary and general elections. Walter Bailey, Julian Bolton and Cleo Kirk filed a legal challenge to the term limit charter provision claiming it is not authorized under state law and is invalid under the state constitution. Each of the plaintiffs was elected to the Shelby County Board of Commissioners in 1998 and again in 2002.
The court’s expedited opinion, written by Chief Justice William M. Barker, overturned a state Court of Appeals decision which had reversed a Chancery Court ruling upholding the 1994 charter provision. While concluding that state law allows voters to adopt term limits, a majority of the Court of Appeals said the charter provision resulted from an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeals decision and heard oral arguments in the case March 21 in Nashville.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs said a section of state law authorizing chartered counties, such as Shelby County, to establish qualifications for holding office does not include the authority to impose term limits. They argued that term limits are not a “qualification for holding office” as used in the statute dealing with chartered counties.
The plaintiffs also contended that Article VII, section I of Tennessee’s constitution prohibits limiting the number of terms a county legislative official may serve. A majority of voters in Shelby County amended the charter to limit terms for county mayor and members of the County Board of Commissioners.
“The plaintiffs reason that because Article VII provides that members of county legislative bodies shall be elected for ‘terms of four years,’ any limitation on the number of terms is invalid,” Barker wrote. “Thus, the plaintiffs construe Article VII as establishing terms of four years with no limit. We disagree with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of Article VII.”
The court recognized that the Article VII provides for voters to establish an alternate form of government, as was done in Shelby County, and concluded that state statutes authorized the imposition of term limits.
Barker cited another section of the state constitution - Article I, section I - providing that the people have an “unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.”
“The constitution is the truest expression of the will of the people …,” Barker wrote. “Accepting the plaintiffs’ position in this case would require us to ignore the fundamental principle of self-government embodied in Article I, section I. This we are not willing to do.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court also denied a request by defendants in the case, including county election officials, for an order delaying the election process. The primary election is May 2 in Shelby County and the general election will be Aug. 3.
The court remanded the case to Shelby County Chancery Court for reinstatement of the lower court’s judgment upholding the term limits provision and collection of costs, which are to be paid by Bailey, Bolton and Kirk.
(03/27/2006)
Circuit Court Judge John A. Turnbull of Livingston is the recipient of the first annual Charlie Hardin Memorial Community Service Award, presented by the Putnam County Bar Association. The award was established in memory of Cookeville attorney Charlie Hardin, who recently died of cancer.
“I can’t think of a finer tribute than to receive the Charlie Hardin Award,” Livingston said.
“Charlie exhibited the most professional traits of an attorney. He simply wanted to help people solve problems they couldn’t solve for themselves. His contributions in the Putnam County community and the district will long be remembered.”
Turnbull’s efforts in establishing a Young Lawyer Mentoring Program for the 13th Judicial District, his service to the community and litigants in judicial mediation and his courtesy and respect to members of the profession as a presiding judge were cited by the bar association in announcing the award.
Turnbull has been circuit court judge for the 13th Judicial District since 1989, and before that, he practiced law in the Upper Cumberland for 22 years. The district served by Turnbull includes Clay, Cumberland, DeKalb, Overton, Pickett, Putnam and White counties.
(03/17/2006)
The Judge Advocate General of the United States Army, Major General Scott C. Black, has selected Circuit Court Judge, John D. McAfee, to be a Military Trial Judge for the 150th LSO. Lieutenant Colonel McAfee has been assigned to the Senior Military Judge Position at Fort Campbell, Ky., home of the famed 101st Airborne Division. McAfee will serve a three-year term in a reserve capacity, and in lieu of typical weekend drills, he will be hearing courts-martials in the U.S. Army's 1st Judicial Circuit.
McAfee served on active military duty with the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, N.C. including a combat tour of duty in Mogadishu, Somalia in the fall of 1993. He has served with various reserve and national guard units as a JAG officer since leaving active duty. Judge McAfee is a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. and the Judge Advocate Basic and Advance Courses of the Judge Advocate General School in Charlottesville, Va.
McAfee's military awards include the Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Reserve Commendation Medal, Army Reserve Achievement Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the United Nations Medal. He has also earned the Parachutist Badge and the Air Assault Badge.
McAfee has served as the Circuit Court Judge of the Eighth Judicial District of Tennessee since Sept. 1, 2004. He previously served as Claiborne County's General Sessions Judge and Juvenile Court Judge from 1998-2004. He and his wife, Leigh Anne, live in New Tazewell with their two children, Thomas and Loren Grace
(03/16/2006)
The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence inmate Stephen Lynn Hugueley received for stabbing a correctional officer 36 times, stopping only when the handle broke on a sharpened piece of metal he had devised as a weapon.
Hugueley, who said he had no remorse for the murder, was an inmate in the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in 2002 when he attacked 57-year-old Delbert Steed.
“Defendant killed the victim because he felt the victim had ‘disrespected’ him,” Justice Cornelia A. Clark wrote for the court. “… Prior to the instant murder, defendant had killed two other persons and attempted to kill a third person.”
After reviewing issues raised by Hugueley in his automatic appeal, Clark said the court concluded they did not warrant relief. The court set an execution date of Aug.15, 2006, for Hugueley, who has state and federal appeals remaining.
Clark was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice William M. Barker and Justices E. Riley Anderson and Janice M. Holder. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., said he also would affirm the conviction, but differed with the majority “as to the sentence of death.”
Birch said he continues to disagree with the method the court uses to ensure that a death sentence is not disproportionate when compared to penalties imposed for similar crimes. The court is required by state law to conduct a “comparative proportionality review” in capital cases.
In Hugueley’s case, Clark said the majority found that his sentence was not imposed arbitrarily and was not excessive or disproportionate considering the nature of the crime and the defendant.
Issues raised by Hugueley included a claim that the prosecution rejected jurors based on their race or gender, a practice deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The jury selected to hear the case included five minority members and six women, Clark wrote.
“In this case, defense counsel objected at trial to the state’s peremptory challenge of five potential jurors …,” Clark wrote. “The record indicates that all of these persons are African-American; Defendant is Caucasian.”
Most of the potential jurors cited in the appeal had expressed moral or religious opposition to the death penalty, but said during questioning they could impose it because it is the law. Another juror was rejected by the prosecutor because she had tears in her eyes and shook her head during the jury selection process.
“… The sole indication of purposeful impermissible discrimination by the state in this case is the fact that each of the peremptory challenges used by the state was employed against an African-American …,” Clark wrote. “A close examination of the record convinces us, however, that the prosecution’s exercise of these challenges was for race-neutral reasons.”
She said the trial court judge also had determined that Hugueley’s attorney “failed to establish purposeful discrimination.”
In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Birch said he had “extreme concern with the fact that of the eight peremptory strikes used by the state to remove potential jurors, all eight were used to remove African-American jurors.” He and the majority cited the trial court judge’s failure to make specific findings on the claim that prospective jurors were excused based on race.
“What is apparent from the record is that seven of the African-American jurors removed … had indicated on their jury questionnaires that they had personal reservations about the death penalty,” Birch wrote. “I understand the prosecutor’s reluctance to seat these jurors, although I also note that during questioning each of them indicated a willingness to follow the law despite their personal beliefs. “
Birch said he would caution trial court judges and defense attorneys dealing with issues relating to potentially race-based exemption of jurors “to take care to develop the facts for the record.” In Hugueley’s case, he said in spite of his “misgivings about the prosecution’s motives” he did not find actionable error and would agree with the majority that the murder conviction should be affirmed.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed the death sentence jurors imposed on a murderer who stabbed his frail 81-year-old victim 27 times and then shook the body to make sure he was dead before fleeing with stolen cash and other items.
Steven James Rollins was convicted of killing bait shop owner John Bussell during a 2001 late-night robbery in the Colonial Heights area of Sullivan County. During questioning by police, Rollins said he and three others had driven to Bussell’s camper-home, located next to his bait shop, with the intent of robbing him.
“The defendant lured the victim from his camper under the pretense of purchasing bait and then attacked the victim while the victim was in a vulnerable position,” Chief Justice William M. Barker wrote in the ruling upholding a Court of Criminal Appeals decision in the case.
Justices E. Riley Anderson, Janice M. Holder and Cornelia A. Clark concurred in the opinion affirming Rollins’ convictions and sentences for the murder and robbery.
In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., agreed with the majority that Rollins’ convictions should stand, but “as to the sentence of death … I respectfully dissent.”
As in previous dissents, Birch wrote that the method used by the court to review and compare Tennessee capital cases is “flawed” in his view. State law requires the court to conduct comparative proportionality review in each death penalty case to determine whether the sentence is disproportionate to the penalties in similar cases.
Writing for the majority, Barker said the court compared a “pool of similar cases”
and concluded that Rollins’ sentence of death was not disproportionate considering the nature of the crime and the defendant.
“The 37-year-old defendant needed money for drugs and decided to commit a robbery …,” Barker wrote. “The defendant planned the robbery and premeditated the murder to conceal the robbery. The defendant chose as his victim an elderly widower who lived alone and whose health was failing. He knew the victim had a reputation of carrying large sums of cash on his person.”
Bussell, who often returned to his bait shop at night to accommodate customers, was scooping out minnows for Rollins when he was stabbed 27 times. Some of the wounds were defensive, indicating Bussell tried to defend himself, experts testified at Rollins’ trial.
“Making absolutely certain that he had left no witnesses, the defendant shook the victim before leaving the bait shop and then washed his hands and knife in the minnow tank before joining his accomplices in searching for and stealing money and personal items from the victim’s bait shop and camper,” Barker wrote.
In his automatic direct appeal, issues raised by Rollins included the failure of authorities in Sullivan County to record his interrogations.
“The Sullivan County Sheriff’s Department has a policy against electronically recording interrogations,” Barker wrote. “The defendant maintains that such a policy contravenes the heightened due process concerns that apply in capital cases. We disagree.”
Barker said the court rejected a similar claim in another death penalty case, State v. Godsey, saying “the issue of electronically recording custodial interrogations is ‘one more properly directed to the General Assembly.’” Following the Godsey decision, the legislature passed a joint resolution calling for a study of issues relating to electronic recording of custodial interrogations.
“The defendant has failed to present any argument that casts doubt upon the soundness of our holding in Godsey,” Barker wrote.
In the appeal, Rollins also contended that his constitutionally-guaranteed right to an attorney was violated, in part because he was questioned without his lawyer being present.
The court rejected the claim saying authorities repeatedly advised him of his Miranda rights and he had signed a waiver of rights form. His statement to police was read to Rollins, who initialed each page and signed the beginning and end, Barker wrote.
“… The defendant was meticulously informed by the authorities of his right to counsel and of the consequences of failing to exercise that right before he confessed to the murder of John Bussell,” Barker wrote. “On two separate occasions the defendant elected to forgo the assistance of counsel and instead chose to speak directly to law enforcement officials concerning his role in the murder.”
Besides finding issues raised in Rollins’ appeal to be without merit, the court also said the legally-defined aggravating circumstances found by jurors outweighed “relatively weak” mitigating evidence presented by the defense.
“We have considered the entire record in this case and conclude that the sentence of death was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion, that the sentence of death is not excessive or disproportionate, that the evidence supports the jury’s finding of the aggravating circumstances and the jury’s finding that these aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt,” Barker wrote.
The court set a July 26, 2006, execution date for Rollins, who has state and federal appeals remaining.
(02/28/2006)
In a decision affirming the death sentence a Memphis man received for killing his girlfriend, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held for the first time that jurors’ identities may be withheld if their safety could be jeopardized by disclosing their names to criminal defendants.
Writing for a 4-1 majority of the court, Justice E. Riley Anderson said issues raised by death row inmate David Ivy in his automatic appeal were not valid or did not affect the jury’s decision to sentence him to death. Chief Justice William M. Barker and Justices Janice M. Holder and Cornelia A. Clark concurred in the ruling which upheld a Court of Criminal Appeals decision.
Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., agreed with the majority that Ivy’s conviction for premeditated first degree murder should stand. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Birch said he disagreed “as to the sentence of death” based on the method used by the court to compare Ivy’s case with similar cases to ensure that his sentence was not excessive or disproportionate.
Ivy was convicted and sentenced for the June 8, 2001, murder of LaKisha Thomas. The victim had sworn out a warrant for aggravated assault against Thomas, who was on parole at the time. He shot Thomas five times in front of witnesses as she sat in her car.
“On June 6, 2001, Ivy attacked Thomas and struck her in the head with a pistol,” Anderson wrote in the opinion filed Tuesday. “Ivy followed Thomas as she drove to and from the Criminal Justice Center, and he threatened to kill her if ‘she put the police in his business.’ Two days later, Ivy approached Thomas as she sat helpless and unarmed in her car and he shot her five times at close range. Ivy’s actions were intentional and premeditated. He acted without provocation or justification.”
Ivy claimed in his automatic appeal that Criminal Court Judge Joseph B. Dailey violated his right to a fair and public trial by an impartial jury. The trial court judge granted a prosecution request to impanel an anonymous jury based on concern for jurors’ safety. Members of the jury panel were not identified by name, although prosecuting and defense attorneys were allowed to question them at length during the selection process.
“The prosecution asserted that a witness had been shot at (and her baby injured) following Ivy’s preliminary hearing and that a relative of Ivy’s had been charged in that incident,” Anderson wrote. “The prosecution also asserted that Ivy was a danger to jurors because he had previously escaped from custody.”
Anderson said the issue of whether an anonymous jury may be impaneled in a criminal case “is an issue of first impression” for the Tennessee Supreme Court. He said he could find no state law or court rule “that either permits or proscribes the use of an anonymous jury.”
In other jurisdictions in which the issue has been addressed, courts “have recognized that impaneling an anonymous jury implicates a number of competing interests,” Anderson wrote. Courts must balance the rights of the defendant to maintain the presumption of innocence against the jury’s safety.
“In achieving this balance, many courts have adopted a two-prong framework for determining when an anonymous jury is appropriate,” Anderson wrote. “The first prong is whether there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection … The second prong of the framework is whether reasonable precautions will minimize prejudice to the defendant and ensure that fundamental rights are protected.”
Anderson said Dailey took reasonable steps to ensure the safety of jurors and their families while also protecting Ivy’s rights as a defendant.
“… We believe that anonymous juries may be impaneled under Tennessee law,” Anderson wrote. “… Given the responsibilities and burdens placed upon jurors in our judicial system, we agree that adopting the two-prong framework used in other jurisdictions allows the trial court to preserve the safety and sanctity of the jury as required in appropriate cases while at the same time preserving the individual rights of the accused.”
In affirming Ivy’s conviction and death sentence, the court set a June 28, 2006, execution date for Ivy, who has state and federal appeals remaining.
(02/22/2006)
The death sentence Memphis jurors imposed on a man who raped and murdered his 13-year-old stepdaughter after luring her into a wooded area has been upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Charles Rice was sentenced to death for the June 18, 2000, stabbing murder of Emily Branch. The girl, whose body was found a week later, had suffered 16 stab wounds, including defensive wounds, medical experts testified at Rice’s trial. Other evidence, including the position of her clothing, indicated the girl had been raped.
“After considering the entire record in this case we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to relief on any of the issues raised,” Chief Justice William M. Barker wrote in the majority opinion filed Wednesday.
He was joined by Justices E. Riley Anderson, Janice M. Holder and Cornelia A. Clark in affirming a Court of Criminal Appeals decision in the case. The courts’ decisions stemmed from Rice’s automatic appeal under state law.
In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., said he agreed that Rice’s convictions should be affirmed, but “as to the sentence of death, however, I respectfully dissent.”
Birch disagreed with the method the court used in this and other capital cases to conduct statutorily mandated “proportionality review.” The court is required to compare each death penalty case to others involving similar defendants and crimes. In his dissent, Birch wrote that the method adopted by the court is “inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty.”
After reviewing similar capital cases and defendants, the majority determined that Rice’s sentence of death “was not applied arbitrarily and was not excessive or disproportionate when compared to similar cases in which the same penalty was imposed,” Barker wrote.
Rice was married to his victim’s mother, Tracie Anderson, at the time of the crime. The couple had separated 12 days earlier and Anderson moved out of Rice’s home.
“Prior to her leaving, the defendant told her that if she left him, ‘it will hurt you more than it hurts me,’” Barker wrote.
On the morning she was killed, Emily and three other girls were out walking and went to the defendant’s house where he was living with his father. After the other girls left, Emily and the defendant were seen walking together. When she didn’t return home, her father, Steven Branch, notified police and began searching for his daughter, who had been living with him.
When Rice was brought in for questioning, he first denied going into the woods with Emily even after being told witnesses had seen them. He later changed his story and blamed the killing on another man, but acknowledged he had lured Emily to the area where she was stabbed to death and knew she would be killed.
Rice, 35 when he committed the crime, was charged with the murder and convicted. During the sentencing phase of Rice’s trial, Emily’s father testified that after his daughter’s murder he often spent nights sitting in his living room and looking at her picture. He said she wanted to be a model and was saving money to attend modeling school.
Mitigating evidence presented by the defense included testimony that several close relatives had died, that Rice had performed poorly in school and had an IQ of 79. But jurors found that aggravating circumstances, as defined by state law, outweighed the mitigating circumstances.
Among issues raised in his appeal, and rejected by the court, was whether evidence was sufficient to prove he raped and murdered the victim.
“By his own admission, the defendant lured the victim into the woods by promising to show her an apple tree but did not intend for her to leave the woods alive,” Barker wrote. “Once in the woods, the victim was stabbed 16 times and left to die. When the defendant returned to the woods with the police, he was able to lead the police directly to the location where the victim’s body had been found … Based on all the evidence, clearly a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime.”
The court considered seven issues raised by Rice and rejected them or found they were harmless errors by the trial court. The Supreme Court also affirmed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals on other issues in Rice’s appeal.
“The sentence of death shall be carried out as provided by law on the twenty-eighth day of June, 2006, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or other proper authority,” Barker wrote.
Rice has state and federal appeals remaining in his case.
(02/21/2006)
The Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission will hold two separate meetings to fill vacancies on the state Supreme Court being created by the Aug. 31 retirements of Justices E. Riley Anderson of Knoxville and Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., of Nashville, commission chairman Mike Bottoms said Monday.
“I believe this is the fairest procedure for all applicants and hopefully both positions can be filled by September 1,” Bottoms said.
Under the Tennessee Constitution, no more than two Supreme Court justices can reside in the same grand division of the state. Each of the three Supreme Court members who have qualified for the Aug. 3 retention election resides in separate grand divisions - Chief Justice William Barker of Chattanooga in the Eastern Division, Justice Janice M. Holder of Memphis in the Western Division and Justice Cornelia A. Clark in the Middle Division.
Bottoms said applicants for the first position to be filled can apply from any region of the state. The appointment of the first justice by Gov. Phil Bredesen will determine the remaining two grand divisions from which applications can be taken.
The deadline to receive applications for the first pending vacancy is 4:30 p.m. CST March 31. Information on how to submit applications is available on the court system website at www.tncourts.gov.
Bottoms said the Judicial Selection Commission will announce a date for its meeting to conduct a public hearing and interview applicants as soon as the information is available. The meeting date also will be posted on the court system website.
“At this first meeting, the commission will consider applications from attorneys residing in any grand division of the state,” Bottoms said. “After recommendations are made to the governor and his selection is made, a second meeting will be scheduled. At the second meeting, the commission will consider applications from attorneys who reside in the two grand divisions not represented by two justices.”
Bottoms said unsuccessful applicants for the first position may reapply for the second position “subject to the constitutional geographic limitation.”
(02/17/2006)
The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the convictions and death sentence William Glenn Rogers received for the 1996 rape and murder of 9-year-old Jacqueline Beard, who was abducted as she picked blackberries near her Clarksville home.
“We have reviewed all of the issues raised by Rogers and conclude that they do not warrant relief,” Justice Janice M. Holder wrote for the majority. “Rogers’ convictions and sentence of death are affirmed.”
Chief Justice William M. Barker and Justices E. Riley Anderson and Cornelia Clark joined Holder in the opinion, filed Friday, which upheld a Court of Criminal Appeals decision in the case.
Rogers, who also was sentenced to 48 years in prison for the kidnaping and rape, met his young victim while she and her brother and cousin played near a mud puddle on July 3, 1996. He identified himself as “Tommy Robertson” and said he was an undercover police officer. He also told the girl’s mother, Jeannie Meyer, he was a police officer before he left in his car.
Five days later, Rogers showed up at the Meyer home and said he had lost a key. Shortly after he left, Jacqueline went outside to pick blackberries. When she failed to return, her mother searched the area and then notified authorities.
Rogers, 34 at the time, was first questioned on July 11. He told police several different stories, finally saying he had accidently run over the child. He signed a statement saying he put her in his car, drove to a bridge and threw her body into the Cumberland River.
Her skeletal remains and clothing were discovered four months later in a wooded area of Stewart County. Human semen stains and fibers consistent with carpet in Rogers’ house were discovered on the shorts she had been wearing the day she disappeared.
“Rogers made several additional, sometimes contradictory, statements about his involvement in the victim’s death,” Holder wrote.
He was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder in the perpetration of a kidnaping, first degree felony murder in the perpetration of a rape, especially aggravated kidnaping, rape of a child and two counts of criminal impersonation. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions with the premeditated murder conviction.
During the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors found four aggravating circumstances as defined by state law. They also found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating evidence, which included testimony that Rogers was physically and sexually abused as a child.
In his automatic appeal, Rogers argued that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support his convictions.
“When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the standard of appellate review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt,” Holder wrote. “… Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, we conclude that the proof points the finger of guilt unerringly at Rogers and Rogers alone.”
In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., wrote that he also would affirm Rogers’ convictions, but not the death sentence jurors imposed for the girl’s murder.
“As to the sentence of death, however, I respectfully dissent,” Birch wrote. “I continue to adhere to my view that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty.”
By state law, the court is required to conduct “proportionality review” when jurors sentence a defendant to death. The review determines whether the sentence was arbitrarily imposed; whether evidence supported the jury’s finding of statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances and whether they outweighed mitigating circumstances; and whether the death sentence was excessive or disproportionate to penalties imposed in similar cases.
Holder wrote that the court conducted an “exhaustive review” of the record in Rogers’ case and records concerning similar crimes and defendants. The majority concluded that “the sentence of death imposed in this case is not excessive or disproportionate,” she wrote.
The court set a June 28, 2006, execution date for Rogers, who has state and federal appeals remaining.
(02/15/2006)
The Tennessee Supreme Court has filed an order that could lead to a substantial reduction in the amount of paper handled by the state’s three offices of the appellate court clerk and also improve access to court records by making more of them available online.
But, before electronic filing – or e-filing – of documents in appellate court cases is implemented as a pilot project, the court is soliciting comments concerning the proposed change. Under the proposal, most filings in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals could be filed electronically and also would be accessible without charge through the internet.
Exempted filings, listed in the proposed rule, include those dealing with minors and documents sealed by a judge. The Supreme Court order, filed Tuesday and posted on the court system website at www.tncourts.gov, creates a 90 day public comment period. The proposed pilot project rule for electronic filing in the appellate courts also is available on the website. The court will review comments before adopting Supreme Court Rule 46, the e-filing rule, which would establish the pilot project.
“The court created a task force, with Justice Janice Holder as our liaison, to study any benefits or pitfalls related to e-filing and then come back to us with recommendations,” Chief Justice William. M. Barker said. “In its detailed report, the task force found that efficiency and accessibility could be improved with a shift from paper filings to electronic filings where feasible and appropriate.”
Tennessee Appellate Court Clerk Michael Catalano, who chaired the task force, oversees offices in Jackson, Nashville and Knoxville, where electronic filings would be accepted under the pilot project. Catalano said even if e-filing were to become mandatory in the future, rather than discretionary as it is under the proposed rule, it would not create a paperless office, but it could significantly reduce the amount of paper he and his staff receive and handle.
“In 2005, our three offices dealt with 26,425 documents filed in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Court of Criminal Appeals and workers compensation court,” Catalano said. “Many of these documents are dozens of pages long. They included briefs, motions, petitions, orders, opinions and other miscellaneous documents.”
Catalano said it is not unusual for filings in some complex cases to be 100 or more pages and fill several bankers’ boxes.
“There are a number of benefits of e-filing beyond the paper issue,” Catalano said. “First, it will enable judges and their staffs, lawyers and the clerk's office to have easier access to documents. In addition, the task force proposes to post documents on the internet for free. That is clearly intended to encourage more open access of the courts to the public.”
If Rule 46 is adopted by the court, Catalano said it would not immediately be implemented.
“We would have to contract with an electronic filing service provider as a first step,” he said. “It probably would be sometime in 2007, or perhaps beyond, before we could begin the pilot project.”
The rule posted by the court for comment says litigants, through their attorneys, would be able to “e-file any document that would otherwise be filed with the clerk’s office in accordance with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure,” except those specifically exempted. The filings would be considered official.
Attorneys wanting to e-file would have to register and receive a password for the system. The system would allow attorneys to file even after the clerk’s office normally is closed for the day.
“Any document received by the clerk before midnight … shall be deemed filed on that date …,” the rule states.
Documents filed electronically by registered users and authorized court personnel would be considered to have been signed. The rule, as proposed, would require parties filing documents to maintain paper copies bearing signatures until final disposition of their cases.
During the pilot project, the documents could be viewed, downloaded and printed through a special website created by the service provider.
(01/26/2006)
Former Chief Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr., will end a 43-year judicial career, including 19 years of appellate court service, with his August 31 retirement from the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Birch, described by Gov. Phil Bredesen as “a trailblazer in the legal profession,” is the only Tennessee judge ever to have served at each level of the court system - general sessions, trial, intermediate appellate court and state Supreme Court.
“I have devoted all of my professional energy to the fulfillment of responsibilities entrusted in me as a member of the judiciary of this great state,” Birch wrote to the governor. “Now, after more than 43 years of service as a public defender, prosecutor, and judge, it is time for me to step away and pursue those goals which are yet unrealized.”
Birch, who in 1996-1997 was the state’s first African-American chief justice, began his judicial career in 1969 as a General Sessions Court judge in Davidson County. He previously had served as an assistant public defender and assistant district attorney in Nashville. In 1978, he became a Criminal Court judge and in 1987, he was appointed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. He was elected to the appellate court in 1988 and was re-elected in 1990. Gov. Ned McWherter appointed Birch to the state Supreme Court in 1993. He was elected to the court the following year and re-elected to an eight-year term in 1998.
"Justice Birch has been a trailblazer in the legal profession throughout a career that has spanned every level of the judicial branch,” Bredesen said. “The state has been fortunate to enjoy the benefits of his dedication to public service for over 40 years. I wish him all the best in his retirement."
During his tenure on the bench, Birch has been recognized with professional awards and honors, including a decision last year by Davidson County officials to name a new Criminal and General Sessions Court building the Justice A.A. Birch Building.
Also, in 2005, Birch was awarded the National Bar Association’s prestigious William H. Hastie Award, the highest award of the NBA’s Judicial Council, for excellence in legal and judicial scholarship and commitment to justice. Other honors have included the Barbara Jordan Award, the highest award given by the international Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity.
In his letter to the governor, Birch, 73, said he has been “immeasurably blessed” in his career. His service, he wrote, “has proven to me that a well-lived life depends not upon what one obtains, but upon what one gives.”
Birch, who earned his B.A. and law degrees from Howard University in Washington, D.C., is a former associate professor of Legal Medicine at Meharry Medical College and a former lecturer in law at Fisk University and Tennessee State University. He is a member of the teaching faculty at the Nashville School of Law and has served as University of Memphis Distinguished Jurist in Residence.
(01/25/2006)
Tennessee Supreme Court Justice E. Riley Anderson will retire Aug. 31, ending a judicial career that included four terms as chief justice and writing or participating in more than 3000 appellate court decisions.
“It is with mixed feelings that I advise you that I will not be a candidate for re-election in August of 2006 for a third term on the Tennessee Supreme Court,” Anderson wrote in a letter to Gov. Phil Bredesen.
Anderson, of Knoxville, practiced law in Oak Ridge for nearly 30 years until 1987 when he was appointed to the state Court of Appeals. He was the first appellate court judge appointed by Gov. Ned McWherter. He was elected to the Court of Appeals in 1988 and elected to the Supreme Court two years later. He was re-elected to an eight-year term in 1998.
"I accept Justice Anderson's notice of retirement from the Supreme Court with regret,” Bredesen said. “He has served on the court with great distinction for 16 years, and we will miss his wisdom and experience."
Anderson, 73, was elected chief justice by the five-member Supreme Court in 1994. He was re-elected in 1997 and in 1998 and agreed to serve again for a short time in 2005.
When he stepped down from the position in 2001, Anderson had served longer than any chief justice in the past 40 years. During his terms as chief justice, the court took a number of steps to improve efficiency in the administration of justice and increase public confidence in the judiciary. He also served as chief during a transition in the judicial system toward automation.
As chief justice, Anderson worked to make courts open and accessible and stressed programs to educate Tennesseans about the judicial branch of government. Some access and education-related court initiatives in which he played a key role were the adoption of a rule allowing cameras in courtrooms to give the public greater access to legal proceedings; creation of a court system website; the SCALES educational program for high school students, which won an American Bar Association award; and a Law School for Journalists conducted in partnership with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.
Changes in the court system while Anderson was chief justice also included creation of a commission to improve foster care; an overhaul of the Code of Judicial Conduct for judges; adoption of a sexual harassment policy for the judicial department of state government; and the adoption of court-annexed alternative dispute resolution to settle legal disagreements without litigation.
The court also took steps while Anderson was chief justice to reduce unnecessary delays in capital cases. The delay-reducing initiatives included providing law clerks to trial judges; monthly monitoring by the chief justice of all capital cases; increased standards and pay for court-appointed capital case attorneys to reduce appeals based on ineffective assistance of counsel; and proposing and obtaining funding for capital case attorneys to assist trial judges.
“The work of the court in administering justice has been challenging and rewarding and I have looked forward to every day, but ‘for every thing there is a season,’” Anderson wrote to the governor.
A successor to Anderson on the Supreme Court will be appointed by Gov. Phil Bredesen. The state Judicial Selection Commission will announce a deadline for applications and will conduct a public hearing and interviews with applicants before submitting names to the governor for his consideration.
Governor Phil Bredesen today named two appointments to the criminal courts of the 10th and 11th Judicial Districts. Amy Reedy, an assistant public defender in Cleveland, will fill a criminal court position in the 10th Judicial District, serving Polk, Monroe, McMinn and Bradley Counties. Chattanooga attorney Don Poole will fill the criminal court position in the 11th Judicial District, Division III, serving Hamilton County.
"Amy Reedy has proven herself both as a prosecutor and as a criminal defense lawyer," said Bredesen. "I'm confident in the skill and experience she brings to the Criminal Court of the 10th Judicial District and know she will serve those who enter her courtroom with fairness and integrity. Throughout her years practicing law, she has shown a strong dedication to public service and I appreciate her willingness to serve in this important position."
Amy F. Armstrong Reedy was licensed to practice law in the State of Tennessee in 1993. She has served as an assistant public defender since January 2005, and previously served 11 years as an assistant district attorney general for the 10th Judicial District. Prior to entering law school, Reedy interned in the office of United States Senator Jim Sasser before serving as deputy clerk in the Criminal Court of Bradley County.
While attending law school, she worked in the Division of Claims Administration as a claims examiner. In 1985, she worked in the office of United States Representative Marilyn Lloyd.
"I am very appreciative of the confidence that the Governor is bestowing upon me," said Reedy. "I look at this new chapter in my life not as just something I've aspired to be, but as an opportunity to heighten my level of public service to my community."
Reedy, 42, holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and a Doctor of Jurisprudence from Nashville School of Law. She has previously been a member of the McMinn County and Tennessee Bar Associations, the National District Attorneys Association and the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "Bringing more than 40 years of experience to the bench,
Don Poole knows the legal system in Tennessee and is highly respected in his community," said Bredesen.
"With experience working as an attorney in private practice, having worked as a former Hamilton County assistant district attorney and as a former prosecutor for the United States Air Force, I have complete confidence in his abilities. I appreciate that he is willing to serve the State of Tennessee in the 11th Judicial District."
Don Wayne Poole, of Old Hickory, Tenn., was licensed to practice law in the State of Tennessee in 1965. He has worked in private practice at Poole, Thornbury, Morgan and Barrow for 33 years. Prior to that, he served as an assistant district attorney in Hamilton County for three years. From 1965 to 1966, he served as a law clerk for Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Ross Dyer. From 1966 to 1969, he was appointed and served in the United States Air Force as a Judge Advocate General Officer.
"I'm very excited about this opportunity. It's truly a dream come true," said Poole. "I look forward to serving Hamilton County in this new capacity." Poole, 65, holds a bachelor's degree and a Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. While in law school, he wrote for the Tennessee Law Review. He graduated second in his law class and was selected Order of the Coif upon graduation.
During his legal career, he has been a member of the Chattanooga Bar Association, the Chattanooga Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, the Tennessee Bar Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the American Bar Association, among others. He was inducted a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers in 1998, and inducted a Fellow of the Chattanooga Bar Foundation in 2000. In November 2005, Poole became a mentor for the Criminal Justice Act panel serving the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Reedy will fill a vacancy in the 10th Judicial District Criminal Court made upon the retirement of Judge Robert Steven Bebb. Poole will fill a vacancy in the 11th Judicial District Criminal Court made upon the passing of Judge Stephen Morris Bevil. These appointments are effective immediately, and the appointees will serve the remainder of the existing terms. They will run for a full eight-year term in the August 2006 general election.
(01/24/2006)
The Tennessee Court of the Judiciary has suspended Roane County General Sessions Court Judge Thomas A. Austin, who was arrested Monday on federal extortion and money laundering charges.
“This court has determined an interim suspension is appropriate,” the Court of the Judiciary said in an order filed Tuesday.
“Under the circumstances, the members of the Court of the Judiciary agreed that it was necessary to act as quickly as possible to suspend Judge Austin,” said Presiding Judge Steven Stafford, who also is chancellor for the 29th Judicial District.
The court is statutorily authorized to suspend a judge “upon the filing of an indictment, presentment or information charging a judge with a felony under the law of any state or under federal law.” Under state law, the suspension is with pay.
The 16-member Court of the Judiciary, created by the General Assembly, receives complaints against judges and is authorized by state law to impose a range of sanctions, including suspensions, or recommend removal from office when appropriate.
Austin, 57, was charged criminally in an eight-count federal indictment. He also may face additional sanctions by the Court of the Judiciary for violating the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct. The code is a rule of the Tennessee Supreme Court and can be found on the court system website
(01/12/2005)
Future attorneys attending the Nashville School of Law will have an opportunity to hear oral arguments in a dozen Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals cases without leaving their Nashville campus.
The cases involve crimes ranging from a speeding ticket a citizen received for his high speed pursuit of a police car to a robbery and murder.
A three-member panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals, with Judge Jerry Smith presiding, will sit Jan. 24-25 in an appellate courtroom at the law school. Also on the panel are Judges Robert Wedemeyer and Thomas Woodall. The 12-member intermediate appellate court sits in panels of three in Nashville, Jackson and Memphis to hear post-conviction petitions and trial court appeals in felony and misdemeanor cases.
The speeding case, State v. John Kersey, began when the defendant saw a police officer driving at a high rate of speed without using a siren or emergency lights. The defendant, Kersey, said he drove behind the police car in an effort to identify and report the officer, who then ticketed him for driving 90 miles per hour. Kersey filed a complaint against the officer and sought a warrant against him for speeding, but was unsuccessful. Kersey has appealed his conviction for speeding.
In the murder case, State v. Danny Wayne Strode, the state is appealing a trial court ruling that the defendant cannot be sentenced to death because he has a low I.Q.
“Dean Joe C. Loser, Jr., who was a circuit court judge for two decades, invited us to conduct court at the law school,” Smith said. “We are looking forward to sitting in one of the school’s two new courtrooms and also to seeing some of the other state-of-the-art facilities on the campus.”
The night law school was started in 1911 by four Vanderbilt law graduates. Loser, a 1959 graduate, is the school’s fourth dean. The former YMCA Night Law School moved recently to its new 33,000-square-foot facility.
(01/06/2006)
Criminal Court Judges Mark Ward and Chris Craft of Shelby County, the 30th Judicial District, have been honored by the Criminal Law Section of the Memphis Bar Association. Ward was voted Judge of the Year while Craft has been chosen to receive the section’s Outstanding Service Award.
“Judge Ward is among the state’s most outstanding judges and is extremely well-regarded by members of the Memphis Bar,” said Garland Erguden, chair of the Bar’s Criminal Law Section. “As a point of interest, he got a 9.70 in the latest judicial evaluation by the Bar Association members. Of the 70 judges in Memphis, that was the highest score.”
Erguden said Craft’s award is in honor of his ongoing assistance, such as speaking, offering the use of his courtroom for programs, teaching Continuing Legal Education courses and “generally doing the heavy lifting.”
Ward was appointed to the bench in 2004 by Gov. Phil Bredesen. Prior to his appointment, he had worked as an assistant public defender and was in the in the private practice of law. He holds bachelor’s and law degrees from Memphis State University, a master’s degree in religion from Memphis Theological Seminary and a master’s degree in criminal justice from the University of Memphis.
Craft was appointed to the bench in 1994. He received his bachelor’s degree from Memphis State University and his law degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law.