holding, in a capital murder trial, that unusual circumstances warranted the late night court sessions, adjourning at the latest 9:05 p.m., where the case had received extensive media attention and the trial court, therefore, had gone outside of the county to secure a jury and the jury was sequestered, “locked away from family, friends and employment until the conclusion of the trial”
How later courts described this case
- holding, in a capital murder trial, that unusual circumstances warranted the late night court sessions, adjourning at the latest 9:05 p.m., where the case had received extensive media attention and the trial court, therefore, had gone outside of the county to secure a jury and the jury was sequestered, “locked away from family, friends and employment until the conclusion of the trial”
- concluding that the defendant’s possession of a weapon similar to that used in the crime “was especially probative as to the identity of the perpetrator”
- concluding that possession of a gun, standing alone, does not constitute a crime and that, therefore, evidence of ownership of a gun is not a bad act
- concluding that previous possession of a handgun and knife are not prior bad acts or crimes “standing alone” and does not implicate Rule 404(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., SP. J.,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the conclusion of the majority that Reid’s convictions should be affirmed. As to the sentences of death, however, I respectfully dissent. I continue to adhere to my view, expressed many times before, 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. See State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286, 323-325 (Tenn.2005) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting), and cases cited therein. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion affirming the imposition of the death penalty in this case.
Aside from the above, I would urge the Executive to follow the lead of California and Florida, whose Governors have suspended executions by lethal chemical until in-depth investigations can be conducted into the propriety of using a certain chemical as a killing agent. I am led to believe that Tennessee includes the same lethal ehemical(s) in its protocol as do California and Florida.