Ex parte Anderson, 1 Div. 722
Decision Date | 10 January 1984 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 722 |
Citation | 457 So.2d 435 |
Parties | Ex parte Josephus ANDERSON. In re State of Alabama v. Josephus Anderson. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William N. Clark of Redden, Mills & Clark, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Through a petition for writ of mandamus filed in this Court, Josephus Anderson seeks to prevent his further prosecution and retrial for the capital murder of Birmingham Police Officer Albert Eugene Ballard. After a review of the issues raised, we deny the relief sought.
On the 29th of November, 1979, Officer Ballard was fatally shot while on duty in downtown Birmingham. Anderson was indicted that December. His motion for a change of venue was granted and his trial was transferred to Mobile County. There, he has been tried three times for the same offense. Each trial resulted in a mistrial because of the inability of the jury to reach a verdict. Now, the State seeks to try Anderson a fourth time.
At the conclusion of each trial, defense counsel filed a plea of former jeopardy or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss. After the third trial, he also filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. Each plea and motion was denied. The jury's vote in each trial was stipulated to by defense counsel and the district attorney. In September of 1983, Anderson filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court seeking to terminate his further prosecution for the capital offense by requiring the trial judge to either sustain his plea of former jeopardy, grant his motion to dismiss, or grant his motion for judgment of acquittal.
In this mandamus proceeding, Anderson maintains that a fourth trial after three prior mistrials constitutes a denial of due process, violates traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and results in an abandonment of the reasonable doubt standard. He also maintains that another trial would violate his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment privileges against double jeopardy under the Constitution of the United States and Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 9.
Anderson was first tried in March of 1981. The trial judge (Joseph M. Hocklander) declared a mistrial after the forewoman of the jury informed the judge that the jury was having difficulty and "might not even be able to get a verdict." Judge Hocklander encouraged the jury to continue deliberating to reach a verdict. He questioned the forewoman as to the benefit of further deliberation and then asked the other members of the jury what they thought ("Does anyone feel that further deliberation would be of benefit?"). He also inquired if any disagreed with the forewoman's answer.
Although we have only a portion of the record of Anderson's first trial before us, we find no specific objection in the record to the declaration of the mistrial. Indeed, although the record does not reflect why, there is an indication that defense counsel had earlier requested a mistrial.
Although this is all the record shows on this matter, defense counsel maintains, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, that, when Judge Hocklander indicated that he was going to declare a mistrial, counsel "asked him if he would permit the jurors to deliberate further and he denied that request." When the mistrial was declared, the jury had deliberated for four hours after a four-day trial and stood ten for acquittal and two for conviction.
Anderson's second trial was in November of 1981. The record shows that the trial judge (Telfair Mashburn) brought the jury into the courtroom "because it's obvious that you must be having problems arriving at a verdict since you've been out since twenty-five minutes till nine this morning." The judge encouraged the jurors to reach a unanimous verdict and gave a charge consistent in principle with Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). Before the jury resumed deliberation, the foreman indicated "(t)hey want to stay here as late as possible to see could we come to a decision."
Approximately one hour and forty-five minutes later the judge had the jury brought back into the courtroom and determined, by questioning the foreman, that there was "no possibility of your arriving at a verdict" and that they were "no closer than you were" before. Judge Mashburn then stated:
The record reflects no objection to the declaration of the mistrial. The jury had been deliberating for seven hours after a four-day trial. The vote was nine for acquittal and three for conviction.
Anderson's third trial was in March of 1983. The trial judge (Mashburn) stated to the jury, "Now they tell me that you've reported that you are unable to arrive at a verdict?" The foreman replied, "That's correct" and, in response to further questioning, indicated that the jury was "hopelessly deadlocked". Judge Mashburn gave an "Allen" instruction and sent the jury back into the jury room. He then stated to defense counsel:
Defense counsel then requested a mistrial on the grounds that some lawbooks had been in the jury room during the jury's deliberation. After ascertaining that none of the jurors "looked at anything on that desk and none of you discussed anything on that desk in your deliberations", the judge denied the mistrial.
The jury had been deliberating for four and one-half hours after a five-day trial when the following occurred:
(JURY PRESENT.)
"THE COURT: All right, reluctantly, I'm going to discharge you and declare a mistrial."
The jury was split eight for acquittal and four for conviction.
This record contains no indication that the State intends to present any new evidence at Anderson's fourth trial.
In denying Anderson's plea of former jeopardy, Judge Mashburn expressed his firm belief in Anderson's guilt. This belief plays a significant role in our decision. In denying the motion after the second trial, he stated:
....
After the third trial another hearing was held on the double jeopardy issue. During that hearing Judge Mashburn stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. State
... Page 292 ... 542 So.2d 292 ... Josephus ANDERSON ... 1 Div. 95 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... April 14, 1987 ... Ex parte Anderson, 457 So.2d 435 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 457 So.2d 446 (Ala.1984) ... ...
-
Cox v. State
... ... 585 So.2d 182 ... Benjamin Franklin COX ... 1 Div. 94 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... for the mistrial in the case of Josephus Anderson, a black man eventually convicted and sentenced to life ... See Ex parte Anderson, 457 So.2d 435 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 457 So.2d ... ...
-
Harris v. State
... ... Burns, Jr., Jose F. Anderson and Nancy S. Forster, Asst. Public Defenders, on the ... That death sentence has twice been reimposed. 1 From the latest reimposition Harris now appeals advancing ... See Ex Parte Anderson, 457 So.2d 435, 443-445 (Ala.Crim.App.1984); ... denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3310, 92 L.Ed.2d 722 (1986). There Judge Eldridge, citing Poole (among other ... ...
-
State v. Vincent Dickerson
... ... Footnote ... 1 .Appeal after conviction: State v. Bailey (Hawaii ... 5 .Mandamus action: Ex Parte Anderson ... ...