Al-Amin v. State

Decision Date24 May 2004
Docket NumberNo. S04A0151.,S04A0151.
Citation278 Ga. 74,597 S.E.2d 332
PartiesAL-AMIN v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John R. Martin, Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C., Donald F. Samuel, William C. Lea, Atlanta, for appellant.

Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Anna E. Green, Asst. Dist. Atty., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen., Ruth M. Pawlak, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

THOMPSON, Justice.

Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin was convicted of malice murder and various other offenses stemming from the shooting of two Fulton County Deputy Sheriffs, that resulted in the death of one and injury to the other.1 The State sought the death penalty, but a jury returned a sentence of life without possibility of parole, and judgment was entered accordingly. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

1. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Short v. State, 234 Ga.App. 633, 634(1), 507 S.E.2d 514 (1998). We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

So viewed, the evidence established that Fulton County Deputy Sheriffs Aldranon English and Ricky Kinchen went to the home of Al-Amin in the West End community of Atlanta to execute a bench warrant for his arrest issued by Cobb County Superior Court.2 The warrant was issued when Al-Amin failed to appear at an arraignment in that court to answer charges of theft by receiving stolen property, impersonating an officer, and operating a motor vehicle without proof of insurance. The Fulton County deputies were in uniform with their badges displayed and they were driving a marked Fulton County Sheriff's patrol car.

Al-Amin's residence was unlit and it appeared to the deputies that he was not at home. Instead of possibly "blowing the warrant" by alerting neighbors of their attempt to find the subject, the deputies decided to leave the area.3 They had driven a short distance when they saw a black car pull up and park near Al-Amin's residence, and they observed a man exit the vehicle. Although it was after dark, the street lights provided good illumination so that the deputies were able to discern that the individual, dressed in Muslim attire, appeared to fit the description of their subject as provided in the warrant. Deputy Kinchen made a U-turn, drove toward Al-Amin's residence, and parked the patrol car nose-to-nose with Al-Amin's vehicle, a black Mercedes-Benz. Al-Amin stood next to his vehicle and kept his gaze on the patrol car as it approached; his left hand was on his car door and he held a brown bag in his right hand. Deputy English exited from the passenger side and walked toward Al-Amin; the officer had not drawn his service revolver. Deputy Kinchen simultaneously exited the patrol car from the driver's side; he was to provide cover for his partner. Deputy English directed that Al-Amin place his right hand in view, whereupon Al-Amin suddenly produced an assault rifle and began firing at the two officers. After shooting both deputies numerous times, using both the assault rifle and a pistol, Al-Amin drove away from the scene.

A neighbor who heard repeated gunfire called 911 and reported that there was an officer down in the street begging for his life. The neighbor described a dark-colored vehicle (he believed to be a Cadillac) speed away from the scene.

Deputy English radioed for help and alerted the dispatcher that the perpetrator left the scene in a black Mercedes. When police arrived at the scene, Deputy Kinchen was able to describe his assailant as an African-American male, 6'4" in height, wearing a long trenchcoat, a "beanie" type hat, and armed with an assault rifle.

The next day Deputy English gave the investigating officers a statement describing the events, and he identified Al-Amin in a photo line-up. Later that afternoon, Deputy Kinchen died from his injuries. A Fulton County warrant was issued for the arrest of Al-Amin on charges of murder, aggravated assault, and other crimes stemming from the shooting. In addition, federal authorities, acting on information that Al-Amin had left Georgia, issued a warrant for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution (UFAP warrant).

Within a day of the shooting, federal authorities received information that Al-Amin might have fled to Whitehall, Alabama; a multi-agency surveillance team was deployed to that area. On the fourth day after the shooting, Al-Amin was spotted on foot in Whitehall by a team of three United States Marshals who were part of the surveillance operation. When the uniformed marshals observed Al-Amin walk toward a wooded area, they exited their vehicle and identified themselves as law enforcement officers. Al-Amin immediately opened fire on them, and then retreated into the woods; the marshals were uninjured.

Al-Amin was captured about three hours later after a team of tracking dogs was brought in to assist in the search. He was wearing a bulletproof vest, and he had in his possession a wallet containing $1,000 in cash and three drivers's licenses issued in his name by three different states. In the vicinity, officers located a .9 millimeter pistol, holster, belt, a magazine of .9 millimeter ammunition, and a piece of fabric on a barbed wire fence that had been torn from the shirt Al-Amin was wearing. The next morning, officers conducted a further search of the area and located the following: several .223 caliber shell casings (both expended and live); a green canvas bag containing a cellular phone, clothing, a magazine containing.223 ammunition, and the registration documents for a Mercedes-Benz automobile showing Al-Amin as owner and reflecting his Fulton County address; a brown day planner containing a bank statement issued to Al-Amin at the same address; and a .223 caliber semi-automatic Ruger assault rifle and two magazines of .223 ammunition.

Nine days after Al-Amin's arrest, his black Mercedes automobile was recovered on private property in the Whitehall area; the license plate was found in a nearby shed. Numerous bullet holes were visible on the car. Bullets which had been fired from the service revolvers of both Deputies Kinchen and English were removed from the wheel rim, frame, windshield, and rear seat of the vehicle.

Ballistics evidence also established that two .9 millimeter metal jacket bullets which had been removed from Deputy Kinchen's abdomen and femur had been fired from the .9 millimeter pistol recovered at the time of Al-Amin's arrest in Whitehall. It was also shown that shell casings collected from the site of the Fulton County shootings had been ejected from that weapon. Numerous .223 caliber cartridge casings collected both at the site of the Fulton County shootings and in the vicinity of Al-Amin's arrest, had been ejected from the . 223 caliber Ruger rifle found along with Al-Amin's personal belongings on the morning after his arrest in Whitehall.

The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found Al-Amin guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, supra.

2. Al-Amin claims that his constitutional right to equal protection, as well as the statutory procedures for selecting grand juries, were violated because the grand jury wheel from which his grand jurors were selected was "forced balanced" by selecting people based on race, gender, and age.

Evidence presented at a pretrial hearing showed that the voter registration list for Fulton County was the sole source for the master grand jury list from which the grand jury in this case was summoned; and because African-Americans in Fulton County do not register to vote at the same rate as Caucasians, a random selection from the voter registration list did not result in a master grand jury wheel which accurately represented the age-eligible African-American community. To remedy this disparity, and to ensure compliance with the Unified Appeal Procedure (UAP) applicable in a death penalty prosecution, jury commissioners employed the process of "forced balancing."4 A computer was instructed to pick names of potential grand jurors from the voter registration list based on race, gender, and age in order to comply with the five percentage point requirements of UAP II(E).

The statutory procedures for creating the grand jury list are found at OCGA § 15-12-40, et seq.5 This Court has consistently held that the use of forced racial balancing is not violative of a defendant's statutory rights. See Ramirez v. State, 276 Ga. 158(1); 575 S.E.2d 462 (2003) (Court approved a grand jury selection procedure fixing the percentage of African-American persons on the grand jury source list to the percentage of African-American persons in the county as reported in the most recent census in accordance with the requirements of the UAP); Yates v. State, 274 Ga. 312(5), 553 S.E.2d 563 (2001) (Court approved forced balancing to ensure that the racial balance in a grand or traverse jury pool reflects the racial balance in the county population); and Gissendaner v. State, 272 Ga. 704(5), 532 S.E.2d 677 (2000) (forced racial balancing is not unlawful).

Al-Amin further asserts that the process of forced balancing violates his right to equal protection. To succeed on an equal protection challenge in the context of grand jury selection, defendant must show (1) that the group is a recognizable, distinct class; (2) the degree of under-representation by comparing the proportion of the group in the total population to the proportion called to serve as grand jurors; and (3) that the selection procedure is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral, thus supporting a presumption of discrimination raised by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • State v. Lane
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 10 d1 Fevereiro d1 2020
    ..., 281 Ga. 590, 593 (6), 642 S.E.2d 37 (2007) ; Watson v. State , 278 Ga. 763, 770 (6), 604 S.E.2d 804 (2004) ; Al-Amin v. State , 278 Ga. 74, 86 (16) (c), 597 S.E.2d 332 (2004) ; Smith v. State , 277 Ga. 213, 219 (17), 586 S.E.2d 639 (2003) ; Morrison v. State , 276 Ga. 829, 834 (5), 583 S.......
  • State v. Jones
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 4 d2 Junho d2 2013
    ...microscopic “[f]irearms toolmark identification” and analysis is generally accepted in scientific community); Al Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 597 S.E.2d 332, 344 (2004) (holding that ballistic and tool marks evidence is not novel). Because bunter mark evidence, like other firearm ballistics e......
  • Ellington v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 19 d1 Novembro d1 2012
    ...that Ellington “didn't” offer evidence on certain points about which the State had failed to present evidence, see Al–Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 84–85, 597 S.E.2d 332 (2004), although any reference to his failure to testify was more tenuous. Even assuming this matter was fully preserved for......
  • Moody v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 16 d2 Maio d2 2023
    ... ... citizens of the county, provide for rotation in jury service, ... and are merely directory. Obviously, however, a disregard of ... the essential and substantial provisions of the statute will ... have the effect of vitiating the array ... Al-Amin v. State , 278 Ga. 74, 80 (7) (597 S.E.2d ... 332) (2004) (citation and punctuation omitted), overruled on ... other grounds by ... State v. Lane , 308 Ga. 10, 23 (Appendix) (838 S.E.2d ... 808) (2020) ...          In ... State v. Towns , we ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Romberg Imbalance: Mitchell v. State Upsets the Equilibrium of Admissible Field Sobriety Test Results in Georgia
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 69-2, January 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...observation," Carr, 267 Ga. at 703, 482 S.E.2d at 314, or that "the average layperson could [not] determine for himself." Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 81, 597 S.E.2d 332, 344 (2004). In this Casenote, scientific procedure will be used when referring to evidence that requires a scientific f......
  • Georgia's Codification of Daubert: Narrowing the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence in Georgia?
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 23-2, December 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...testimony regarding the scientific theory behind the operation of the tesf *). 71. Harper, 292 S.E.2d at 396. 72. See AI-Amin v. State, 597 S.E.2d 332, 344 (Ga. 2004) (holding that it was proper for the trial court to judicially notice a scientific procedure and thus admit it without a Harp......
  • Jury Composition Reform: Ensuring the Right to a Jury of One’s Peers in Georgia
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Bar Journal No. 18-2, October 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...aoc/publications/JCH.pdf (last visited Sep. 14, 2012); Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 34, Unified Appeal Proc. R. II(E); Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 597 S.E.2d 339 (2004). [7] Al-Amin, 278 Ga. at 78, 597 S.E.2d at 341. [8] See Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts, Report to the Georgia Jury Com......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT