Supreme Court hears testimony in case where judge overruled jury's guilty verdict

my name is Brad Smith I'm the district attorney for the Piedmont judicial circuit at the table with me is Patricia Brooks she's the assistant district attorney that was one of the cisterns that tried this case or hear about today there were five reasons that the judge in this case granted a new trial on his own motion I would like to start with the fifth reason the general grounds because I believe that's the most important issue they were hear about today Code section ocg a 5 - 5 - 20 says it a new trial can be granted if the verdict is contrary to the principles of justice and equity and ocg a 5 5 21 states if the verdict is decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence that's the reasoning for the general grounds the best case we found was this court's case state versus Hamilton in 2016 to 299 Georgia 667 in that case your honors the court said that the discretion of a trial judge to award a new trial on the general grounds is not boundless it is after all a discretion that should be exercised with caution and invoked only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderance heavily against the verdict all the cases we could find we could not find one where a judge granted on the general grounds that was overturned because but every one of these cases say that this power is not boundless the problem is there is no boundary set yet by this Court now we have to in our things show that the law and the facts demand a verdict in this case that was given I'd like to briefly go over the facts in this case the defendants case Paul Hamilton owned property in Barrow County at 1302 Charley haul roads he did not live there he owned the property there was an abandoned trailer there that had not been lived in for a few years his daughter and grown daughter allowed some friends of hers to hunt on that property with mr. Hamilton's permission on the day in question at seven o'clock in the morning three hunters arrived at that property to go hunting they found a u-haul truck parked in the driveway and when I say driveway we're out in the country this is a wooded lot with a road dirt road cut into it you can't even go around it is trees on all sides and there's a u-haul blocking it there's a woman standing in the back of the u-haul there's words exchanged between these hunters and that woman the u-haul starts up frozen reverse and slams into the truck but one of the hunters came in shots were fired by the hunters the u-haul flees it goes up Charlotte Hall Road about 200 yards makes a right on to old hog Mountain Road when it makes that right the door the u-haul is still up things fly out of the road onto old hog Mountain Road and the truck disappears that's a 7 a.m. in the morning two hours later around 10:30 police are club sorry at 7:00 a.m. after this incident the hunters call the police and they call the defendant mr. Hamilton to the property two hours later the police are called back out there because they have found a purse and a cell phone that they blink believe belonged to one of the perpetrators that was there at this time while they're out there the police are out there at 10 o'clock or 10:30 excuse me mr. Hamilton says if they come back here you're going to need to call a corner an hour later the two people that were in that u-haul Brandon Lee and Teddy Taylor have gone to a third person's house a friend of theirs named Judy Hewitt and they have asked her to drive them back up the old hog Mountain Road to get some of their stuff they had come out of the u-haul Judy Hewitt who was not involved in the earlier incident with the hunters takes them in her single cab truck a Ford Ranger that has the three of them in it Judy Hewitt is driving Teddy Caylor the girl that was at the original scene is in the middle and Brandon Leigh is on the far side they go up the old hog Mountain Road which again is about 200 yards up the road from the residence where this happened they park on the side of the road and they get out and I start looking for stuff again this is three hours after the original incident at this point mr. Hamilton has gone looking for the u-haul he's driving around looking for it once they get there some people tell mr. Hamilton that some people are out there picking the property that have fallen out of the u-haul trailer mr. Smith had I know I'm breaking your flow but just because you know you you have already previewed for us that there's a difficult standard here yes there's a difficult standard for us when we're reviewing the general grounds on appeal can you focus in on what happened when mr. Lai was shot yes and in particular I'd like to hear about accident yes when mr. Lai is um when mr. Hamilton gets out there he blocks these three people and he doesn't know who they are he's not being told that they are the people from the earlier instant factory who it wasn't he blocks them in so that they can't leave they now are all back in the truck in the same seating arrangement as earlier he gets out of the car with a loaded weapon goes up to the car puts his hands in the car to try and take the keys out and puts his other hands in the car he says mr. Lai grabbed his hand his arm and that's when he fired the shot now when the officer arrived on the scene yes he say that's when I fired the shot or does he say that's when the gun went off he does say the gun went off but he also talks about I pulled the trigger and what another thing you need to look at is view the he date actual reenactment he went out to the scene so you have his words but you also have his actions and you can see him do the pulling the trigger when the first officer arrives sorry the judge's order granting the motion on general grounds though specifically says references the courts perception of the credibility of specific witnesses right when we consider all of these when we consider what the evidence was we're not doing a Jackson versus Virginia assessment of considering the facts in the light you know most favorable to the verdict we're doing it presuming that he drew all of these credibility determinations in the direction of his order right right and what I was gonna say and my factual dissertation is mr. when the first officer arrived on the scene mr. Hamilton told him that I got out and see what I got here I want to see I want to get exactly right he says to the first officer on the scene and this is his quote I shot him deader than [ __ ] nothing about an accident nothing about the gun going off that's what he said I shot him deader than [ __ ] when he's interviewed the first time by the investigator he says I had my weapon in my hand it was through the window I reached in to get the key out of the switch he also says in that interview I was going to fire and try to shoot through the window not in any individual so lets me know take all of these things as true as I think we must all these credibility findings let's let's presume that everything mr. Hamilton said is correct what I'm interested in is that is there any legal rule that would have demanded a contrary result okay let's talk about that because what I'm saying is these are what mr. Hamilton said credibility determinations that the trial judge I mean look what I'm asking here is in self-defense for example there are circumstances where as a matter of law self defense can't apply if you're the aggressor right is there something like that monthly for accident here absolutely there was not an accident he was acting criminally negligent if you go into a bank and rub the bank and say give me your money if the gun accidently goes off you're just as killed that's still an armed robbery it's still a death in the commission of that armored hold on what we have here is an aggravated assault well in someone died let's talk about that yes is is there anything criminal he will strike that he had some under some version of the evidence presented at trial he had some reason to think that these people in this Ford Ranger may have had something to do with the trespass and or browsing at his trailer absolutely is there any crime against him confronting them in a public place on the side of the road there is a crime of him he does not he running them in the sense of going up and talking to him about not at all but what he did was lock them in is there a crime in him carrying a gun with not at all but there is a crime of him taking this gun sticking it inside the window of their private vehicle with the intention of shooting out that window which is what he said his intention was shooting out the other window the the far side window is it as a matter of law aggravated assault if there are people strangers inside of a car and you stick a loaded gun in it no matter where you point it if you're sticking it in the backseat I would say probably not but if there's three people in a single cab and you're at the driver's window pointing the gun in the driver's window as you're trying to take the keys to that vehicle away from a private citizen he say he was pointing another window yeah yes yes he does I thought there was a reach maybe saying it was reaching if you have to look at the reenactment also and watch his motions but he talks about when he reached his hands in his other cane came through and he does the motion let's go let's presume that the trial court who was the thirteenth juror here decided that he wasn't pointing he was just reaching does that change your argument the problem we have here is we don't have any of that and that's the problem with this case when I was talking about the boundaries in every other one of these cases with the with the findings the judges had a hearing they had enumerated what it was they were talking about they talked about what is the judge I mean you also complain there was no transcript I mean the judge is the thirteenth juror yes the whole I mean it's nice if he gives you a chance to weigh in on your views on the general grounds so there's nothing in the statute that requires it and we don't make jurors wait for the transcript to read the transcript and decide what to do and we don't make jurors give a lot of detail for why they reach their conclusion because this type of ruling is not a normal ruling a judge gifts our entire system is based on jury verdicts he's done is over now the jury Evert is exactly what the general grounds allow it exactly I'm not saying it doesn't allow what I'm saying is that is a huge power and the courts at this point have upheld that responsibility said that power which is why when you see these they are detailed reason they don't just say there's inconsistencies every trial has inconsistencies they don't just say credibility issues does that demand a different result I would believe or is that just your preference a good idea I believe that the facts of the case demand the results on what do you rely that judge mote should have put in his order that he should have put more in his order than he did relative to his questions concerning the credibility of witnesses do you mean what case law I rely on what legal what legal of 40 do you rely on for the proposition that his order is insufficient there isn't that's the problem that is the problem with this power it is such a great power to overturn a jury verdict which is what our criminal system is based on with no guidance and no reasoning that's a common law thing that has happened even before the statute even before this court that's what I think has been a Superior Court it has Georgia since before we've had any appellate review it has and what we found is they all say it's not boundless right that's but there's never been one that's been overturned that said you reach the boundary as justice Warren was saying there are bounds if it is if there is some legal error involved yes in the exercise of discretion what what I'm saying here is if you look at what the defendant said happened which that is an aggravated assault which constitutes felony murder there's no issue of what's his credibility at issue were there inconsistencies in his statement counsel counsel he's not you you are you were understandably arguing why he's guilty yes but it is not sufficient for us to agree with you that he is guilty it seems to me that you have to convince us that no rational jurist could look at this record here this trial that we didn't hear that we didn't see live and and come to the opposite conclusion that's a very different thing than saying I think my case is conclusive it's a very different thing to say that it is impossible for judge motes to have listened to seeing the witnesses consider all the things that happen during trial and decided this is not a just verdict with all due respect I don't believe that would be the standard the standard isn't would any rational jurors it's not possible for any rational jurors to do this the standard is that this discretion should be exercised with caution and invoked only in exceptional cases that's a description of how the standard has been applied I think I mean what justice Bethel has said I don't think is the exact verbatim quote for what the standard is but but it's awfully close and there might be two sides at the same coin here's the problem if there were no evidence demand something that no rational juror would find to the contrary correct and what I'm saying is if you look at the facts of this case he talks about credibility the hunters were on the scene there was some disagreement about who was standing where but no disagreement about pulling of triggers became where the gun was is your strongest factual argument effect it or your representation that he was engaged in the aggravated assault at the time yes also criminal negligence precludes the use of an accident that's also which aspect of aggravated assault intent to inflict a violent injury or putting people in a reasonable fear of injury putting people in reasonable fear you could argue both it was her but i think was her evidence that people saw the gun pointed toward them before it went off yes do you hew it ain't a detail talked about the gun being in the V what if the judge didn't believe them mr. Hamilton said he put it in the vehicle he put it in the vehicle but putting it in putting a gun into a vehicle we're holding a gun up here does not make an aggravated assault again there's a video though he's not doing this he shows you what he's doing he's not just talking this is not a theoretical argument either an intent to inflict a violent injury where do you get the intent to inflict a violent injury because he said he he you couldn't you couldn't fur by the act what happened with the fighting intended to shoot my cooter is different than Mustang fur right what I'm saying is I'm not a chore or I'm not conceding that he meant to shoot him we can infer that but even if you don't find that put a single cab truck with three people shoulder-to-shoulder putting the gun in the driver's window shooting across two women and striking them in land any time you're trying to retry the case to us and I get it you prosecuted the case I understand but anytime you're trying to rehash those arguments you've probably lost us because that is what the general grounds allows the trial court to disbelieve any explanation they can disbelieve it so I think your better argument and the one that I'd like to hear it about in your remaining time is any kind of reason that precludes as a matter of law the conclusion that the judge came to hear yes so I think that turns you to your accident there's no conflict in the evidence as to what he did there's conflict about what happened earlier but none to the other that is an aggravated assault there's no accident defense because he's either Kremmling negligent let's talk about the criminal negligence what constitutes criminal negligence based on this fact pattern sticking his hand with a loaded gun with his hand on the trigger inside someone else's private vehicle with three people in it while he's trying to get their private property of keys from their immediate possession preclude that is criminal negligence at the least and are there other cases that you can cite to us and some of them maybe in your brief they are similarly criminal negligence has been found under under circumstances like these yes there's one case I don't room they have top ahead it is in the brief where a man gets in the bed with a loaded gun and it goes off and shoots us I believe it was his wife at the time defense in that case yes and that was argued at truc during the trial also about whether or not they were going to give an accident defense the judge did give the accident defense but that was argued during the charge conference at the trial level also in those cases were presented at that time also I will say this the trial judge this is my probably my strongest argument the trial judge purposely surprised the state it wasn't that he just didn't have to have a hearing he purposely surprised the state if you look at the transcript he says to the assistant district attorney at the time I know the states just as surprised as I was when the verdict came down he did that on purpose to surprise the state which is not a good look I'm going it's not I'm saying is legal but it goes towards his intent there's no hearing at all and number four in his heirs I'm coming out to fill up with a hearing dude I mean I don't understand when you say hearing you mean oral argument hearing right any sort of an opportunity for the state to go through this he lists his reason Bowman MFR a motion for reconsideration we did your honor we ran out of time miss the this judge retired a few days after this new judge one of the continuance for a chance and we ran out of time we would not been able to appeal it so we had we did file a motion for reconsideration to extend the time to appeal for 30 days right we did he did not your honor okay so we had we had to do this and what I'm saying is he does give one reason okay if you look at his things in his oral to the court when he was giving this thing he says inconsistencies and credibility but doesn't say who it is except for one time he says pulled us here I want to get it quote right the hunters the firearm experts and oh that's in the written order in the verbal order on the transcript page 10 of the sentencing hearing he says this is the only time he mentions a witness and what the testimony was he says I remember one witness not admitting that methamphetamine would have affected her perception of any of these events at all and that troubled me the only things to see are incredible he says I remember one witness saying that methamphetamine would not have affected her perception of any of these events you know we had that is not assuming you're on this important point that is not in the trial transcript at all that is imaginary evidence petty Taylor is the only witness that talked about methamphetamine use that question was never asked of her she never said anything about that that fact is imaginary it did not happen please look at the trial transcript he lists one thing one fact and it's not in the transcript and there is case law that says if your factual basis is incorrect the deference given to you is less and that's in our brief also your honor thank you [Music]

Channel: 11Alive

Views: 1,574,586

Keywords: 11Alive, Atlanta, news, local news, 13th juror, Judge Motes, Barrow County Judge Motes, Georgia Supreme Court, Paul Hamilton, Brandon Lay, Barrow County Sheriff Jud Smith, Sheriff Jud Smith, Attorney Jeffrey Sliz

Id: IJMx3F3OlGM

Length: 20min 12sec (1212 seconds)

Published: Wed Jul 31 2019