Ex parte Lindsey
| Decision Date | 24 August 1984 |
| Citation | 456 So.2d 393 |
| Parties | Ex parte Michael LINDSEY. (In re: Michael Lindsey v. State of Alabama). 83-329. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
T. Jefferson Deen III, Mobile, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is a death penalty case. We granted certiorari as a matter of right. Rule 39(c), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner Lindsey takes issue with the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in several respects. After a thorough review of the record and study of the applicable law, we find no reversible error.
We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that this second trial did not violate Lindsey's right not to "be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Ala. Const. art. I, § 9; U.S. Const. amend. V. When the jury twice reported that it was unable to reach a verdict, the trial court properly granted a mistrial. Code 1975, § 12-16-233; Ala. Const. art. I, § 9. This affirmance is not to be taken as approving the statements of the Court of Criminal Appeals indicating that the trial court correctly instructed the first jury not to begin considering lesser included offenses until it reached a unanimous preliminary verdict of "not guilty" of the capital offense. Rather, we merely affirm the determination that the deadlock of the first jury, for whatever reason, was sufficient grounds for a mistrial.
We also affirm, 456 So.2d 383, the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the denial of Lindsey's motion for a free transcript of the first trial does not require a reversal under the facts of this case. While it would have been proper for the trial court to grant the motion under the rule announced in Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971), the facts in this case, just as in Britt, indicate that an adequate substitute was available. Lindsey's counsel conducted pointed cross-examination of the State's key witnesses, making frequent reference to their prior testimony.
Lindsey's attorneys attacked the weaknesses in the State's case and established the theory of their defense in cross-examining the State's witnesses. They had transcripts of the prior testimony of three of the principal witnesses (two officers and the forensic pathologist) and statements given to the police by two other key witnesses (members of Lindsey's household). In closing arguments, Lindsey's attorneys emphasized the inferences to be drawn in his favor, chiefly from inconsistencies among the witnesses' testimony and from questions raised about the State's handling of the case. In sum, we cannot say that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that Lindsey has not been denied the tools of effective advocacy, see Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), as guaranteed by his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process of law.
Lindsey's argument that the trial court impermissibly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tate
... ... See, e.g., United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1982) ; Lindsey v. State, 456 So. 2d 383, 387 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983), aff'd, 456 So. 2d 393 (Ala. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1023, 105 S. Ct. 1384, 84 L ... parte ... ...
-
Crowe v. State
... ... at 2064." Duncan v. State, supra. See also, Ex parte Daniel, 459 So.2d 948 (Ala.1984) ... The appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by its failure to ... This contention has been authoritatively answered against appellant. Ex parte Jones, 456 So.2d 380 (Ala.1984); Ex parte Lindsey, 456 So.2d 393 (Ala.1984); Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984) ... The appellant contends ... ...
-
Daniels v. State
... ... State, 375 So.2d 270 (Ala.1979), vacated on other grounds, 448 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 3044, 65 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1980). See also Lindsey v. State, 456 So.2d 383, 389-90 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), aff'd, 456 So.2d 393 (Ala.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1023, 105 S.Ct. 1384, 84 L.Ed.2d 403 ... ...
-
State v. Sawyer, 14650
... ... Our conclusion endorsing the acquittal first instruction, however, is consistent with those reached by other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Lindsey v. State, 456 So.2d 383, 387 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), aff'd, 456 So.2d 393 (Ala.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1023, 105 S.Ct. 1384, 84 L.Ed.2d 403 ... ...