holding that a dual jury procedure was proper because the Court had previously set forth a brief guideline governing the dual jury procedure. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted that “[t]he procedure „requires great diligence on the part of the trial judge and cooperation of the attorneys to take the precautions necessary to ensure due process throughout the joint trial.‟”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a dual jury procedure was proper because the Court had previously set forth a brief guideline governing the dual jury procedure. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted that “[t]he procedure „requires great diligence on the part of the trial judge and cooperation of the attorneys to take the precautions necessary to ensure due process throughout the joint trial.‟”
- "A review of the trial record shows that counsel did put forth a mental health expert...."
- consider whether challenged conduct made trial "so fundamentally unfair as to deny [defendant] due process"
- OIDS Capital Direct Appeals Division asserted failure “to fully investigate [defendant’s] mental health background or effectively assist [mental-health expert prepare] for his second stage testimony”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, J.,
specially concurs.
¶ 1 I concur and agree with the majority that collateral estoppel applies in this case as to the question of dual juries. Even though Appellant was not a party to the “Extraordinary Writ,” the doctrine of collateral estoppel would apply and therefore any additional discussion, I feel, is unnecessary. Harjo et al. v. Turnbull, Order (Okl.Cr. January 14, 1997). I agree with the Court’s analysis on the balance of the proposition of error (dual jury issues) but feel that the analysis is unnecessary.
¶2 The Court in its discussion on the DNA test results and other places in the opinion indicates that trial counsel failed to object to statements or admission of evidence and therefore the court could only examine for “plain error.” This, of course, is a proper statement with which I agree but I need to point out that “plain error” is not one and the same as “reversible error.” Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 , (Okl.Cr.1994). This Court has found that the terms “plain error,” “fundamental error,” and “substantial right” are one and the same meaning. Simpson, 876 P.2d at 695 . The errors complained of do not go to the foundation of the case nor show prejudice. The Court was proper in applying the harmless error analysis. Simpson, 876 P.2d at 695 .
¶ 3 Guilt in this case is exceedingly clear. This is a horrible case of an unjustified killing. Clearly all of the parties knew what was going to happen because they could all be easily identified and they had to cover their crime with the atrocious murder. I find nothing in this case that would make me change the jury’s verdict. Therefore, I specially concur.