B. DID THE PROSECUTORS' FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENSE COUNSEL WITH DETECTIVE JOHN NELSON'S NOTES IN DISCOVERY AND THEIR USE OF THE NOTES AT APPELLANT'S TRIAL VIOLATE MISS.UNIF.CRIM.R.CIR.CT.PRAC. 4.06(a)(2) AND CONSTITUTE REVERSIBLE ERROR?
C. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT JOHNNY LANIER'S INTOXICATION AND DRUG USE COULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE POSSESSED A SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM?
We therefore hold that when a defendant demonstrates to the trial judge that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant factor at trial, the State must, at a minimum, assure the defendant access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense. This is not to say, of course, that the indigent defendant has a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. Our concern is that the indigent defendant have access to a competent *481 psychiatrist for the purpose we have discussed, and as in the case of the provision of counsel we leave to the States the decision on how to implement this right. (emphasis added)
2. DID THE STATE'S NUMEROUS REFERENCES TO ALMA WALTERS' PERSONAL QUALITIES AND THE SUFFERING OF HER FAMILY UNFAIRLY PREJUDICE THE JURY IN VIOLATION OF LANIER'S EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS?
*483 3. DID THE STATE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON THE LAW DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF APPELLANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE?
[T]he truth that they are afraid you will see as a juror that this defendant committed capital murder. The elements of this offense are that he killed a police officer acting in the scope of her duty. (emphasis added)
4. DID THE PROSECUTOR IMPERMISSIBLY REFER TO FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND MISSTATE THE EVIDENCE IN HIS ARGUMENT TO THE JURY?
C. DID THE INTRODUCTION INTO EVIDENCE AND USE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ALMA WALTERS' BODY BOTH IN THE GUILT/INNOCENCE AND SENTENCING PHASES IMPAIR JOHNNY LANIER'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS?
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
D. DID THE TRIAL JUDGES' LEGAL ERRORS AND MISCONDUCT DEPRIVE JOHNNY LANIER OF HIS RIGHTS TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND TO A FAIR TRIAL?
1. DID JUDGE WILLIAMSON'S FAILURE TO RECESS AND ADJOURN AT REASONABLE TIMES DENY LANIER THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
2. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO READ MOTIONS AND IN RULING ON MOTIONS HE HAD NOT REVIEWED?
3. DID THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY CROSS–EXAMINE DEFENSE WITNESSES, INCLUDING JOHNNY LANIER?
“Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The primary object of the constitutional provision in question was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits ... being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness.
It was error to admit the introduction of the report of the hospital and the statements contained therein without the witnesses being present and appellant given the opportunity to cross-examine them. (emphasis added)
B. SHOULD THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF AVOIDING ARREST AND DISRUPTING OR HINDERING THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF ANY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY BECAUSE ALMA WALTERS DID NOT LAWFULLY ARREST JOHNNY LANIER?
*491 C. IS THE “ESPECIALLY HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS OR CRUEL” AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MISS.CODE ANN. § 99–19–101(5)(h) UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND OTHERWISE INAPPLICABLE?
D. DOES THE INVALIDITY OF A SINGLE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE ENTITLE LANIER TO A NEW SENTENCING HEARING?
E. DOES THE JURY'S REFUSAL TO FIND AT SENTENCING THAT JOHNNY LANIER INTENDED TO KILL THE DECEDENT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF JOHNNY LANIER'S CONVICTION FOR CAPITAL MURDER?
F. IS THE SENTENCE OF DEATH IN THIS CASE UTTERLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO JOHNNY LANIER'S CULPABILITY IN LIGHT OF HIS MENTAL INCAPACITY, RETARDATION, AND CHRONIC ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, AND OF THE CONCEPTS OF DECENCY INHERENT IN THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND IN OUR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE?
It is Hornbook law, firmly imbedded in the caselaw of this State, that unsworn prior inconsistent statements may be used for impeachment of the witness's credibility regarding his testimony on direct examination. The prior inconsistent out-of-court statements made by one not a party may not be used as substantive evidence. [citations omitted]
[But impeachment] does not mean that the out-of-court statement became evidence on its merits or had any probative value.... The rule seems to be universal that the impeaching testimony does not establish or in any way tend to establish the truth of the matters contained in the out-of-court contradictory statement.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |