Potts v. Zant
Decision Date | 06 January 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C80-1078A. |
Citation | 575 F. Supp. 374 |
Parties | Jack Howard POTTS, Petitioner, v. Walter D. ZANT, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Jack Howard Potts, pro se.
Frank L. Derrickson, Millard C. Farmer, Joseph M. Nursey, Team Defense Project, Ralph Goldberg, The Law Project, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.
Thomas J. Charron, Dist. Atty., Marietta, Ga., Raphael Banks, Dist. Atty., Canton, Ga., John Dunsmore, Susan Boleyn and Michael Johnson, Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Ga., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
This consolidated action includes two habeas corpus petitions. The first, Civil Action No. C80-1078A, pending in the Atlanta Division of this Court, involves constitutional challenges to petitioner's conviction of kidnapping and resulting sentence of death, following a multi-county crime spree, in Cobb County, Georgia, Superior Court. The second petition, Civil Action No. C80-50G, pending in the Gainesville Division of this Court, involves constitutional challenges to petitioner's conviction of murder, and subsequent sentence of death, in the Superior Court of Forsyth County, Georgia. The Court now has before it the substantive issues raised by the two petitions following an evidentiary hearing held on June 4, 1982, at which petitioner was physically present.
Petitioner's attorneys, including one attorney appointed and to be compensated by the Court, have filed pursuant to the Court's request and directions a 104-page document setting forth the issues of law and fact raised by petitioner, his proposed findings of fact and statements of law in support thereof. The state has filed a brief in response thereto paralleling the form of petitioner's document. This order likewise will conform subject-wise and in sequence to petitioner's document in an effort to make a direct ruling on each issue.
Issue One (Cobb County)
Petitioner contends that at his capital trial, in Cobb County, he was indicted on charges of kidnapping with bodily injury,— but that the jury failed to find bodily injury and thus, in fact, he was convicted only of simple kidnapping—a conviction which would not authorize a death sentence.
The indictment upon which petitioner was convicted in Cobb County charged (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, pp. 614-615):
Count Three. And the Grand Jurors aforesaid in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charge the accused with the offense of Felony for that the said accused on the 8th day of May, 1975, in the county aforesaid with force and arms did unlawfully then and there abduct Michael D. Priest, a person, without lawful authority and held such person against his will and did kill the said Michael D. Priest by shooting him with a certain pistol; the said killing of Michael D. Priest having occurred while in the unlawful custody of the accused in Forsyth County, Georgia, and the said Michael D. Priest having remained in the unlawful custody of the accused from the time of his abduction in Cobb County, Georgia, until the time of his homicide in Forsyth County, Georgia; contrary to the laws of this State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof.
Georgia Code 26-1311 (now 16-5-40) upon which Count III of the Cobb County indictment was predicated, provides:
The trial was bifurcated into an innocence/guilt phase and a sentencing phase upon an initial finding of guilt. In his charge to the jury at the innocence/guilt phase, the trial court stated (Respondent's Exhibit 1, p. 624):
Members of the jury, Count Three of this indictment charges kidnapping and at this time I instruct you a person commits kidnapping when he abducts or steals away any person without legal authority or warrant and holds such person against his or her will.
The court informed the jury that its verdict at this phase of the trial must be only as to guilt or innocence "without any consideration of punishment." (Respondent's Exhibit 1, p. 628). The jury's verdict was "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as to Count Three, kidnapping." (Respondent's Exhibit 1, p. 637).
At the sentencing phase of the case, the court charged the jury as follows (Respondent's Exhibit 1, pp. 644-649).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Drinkard v. Walker
...or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the [other] crime charged") vacated on other grounds by Potts v. Zant, 575 F.Supp. 374 (N.D.Ga.1983). 13. 232 Ga. at 316, 206 S.E.2d 14. 284 U.S. at 299, 52 S.Ct. 180. 15. Id. at 317, 206 S.E.2d 475. 16. Robert E. Cleary, Jr......
-
Drake v. Kemp
...such has not been the case. See Young v. Kemp, 758 F.2d 514 (11th Cir.1985); Potts v. Zant, 734 F.2d 526 (11th Cir.1984), 575 F.Supp. 374 (N.D.Ga.1983); Drake v. Francis, 727 F.2d 990 (11th Cir.1984). See also Wilson v. State, 246 Ga. 62, 268 S.E.2d 895 (Ga.1980); Zant v. Campbell, 245 Ga. ......
-
Drake v. Francis
...jury are not spared constitutional infirmity by prefatory remarks indicating that they were directed solely to the court. Potts v. Zant, 575 F.Supp. 374 (N.D.Ga.1983). We agree with the district court. Where statements are so prejudicial that they would invalidate a sentencing hearing when ......
-
Potts v. Zant
...of the district court granting habeas corpus relief in both of the cases involved in this consolidated proceeding. Potts v. Zant, 575 F.Supp. 374 (N.D.Ga.1983). We reach the same result as the district court, requiring a new guilt/innocence trial in No. C80-1078A and a new sentencing trial ......