After actually reading the case summary on the Georgia Supreme Court website http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s08a0426.pdf, here is where it stands:
1. The lower court will need to rule pre-trial on whether the defendants have immunity from prosecution. Previously, the lower court planned on waiting until after the evidence was presented at trial to decide whether the defendants were entitled to a defense-of-habitation instruction to the jury (which would then allow the jury to weigh in on whether defense of habitation was there and justifiable).
So this basically gives the defendants a shot at cutting the prosecution off before trial, but this being Georgia (where a 17 year old can get 10 years for letting a 15 year old be his Monica Lewinsky), it might be difficult for an elected judge to let cop killers avoid a trial, especially cop killers with names like Antron Dawayne and Damon Antwon instead of Billy Joe and Bubba Ray. If they don't get immunity (which would be an appealable issue and hopefully some strict constructionists can be found in the Georgia appellate system), then they probably get a chance at getting a defense-of-habitation instruction presented for the jury's consideration. Still an uphill battle when the "victims" are cops instead of burglars.
2. The state is seeking the death penalty, with the death penalty charge being sought for malice murder (basically premeditated murder) and felony murder (murder committed during the course of a felony). The underlying felony for the felony murder charges is assault.
To get the death penalty, the state, during the sentencing phase identified as the sole statutory aggravating circumstance with respect to all counts the fact that [t]he offense of murder was committed against a peace officer while he was engaged in the performance of his official duties.
The defendants think that at the guilt/innonence phase of the trial that the state should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew they were shooting at peace officers. The Court indicates the indictment doesn't charge them with the distinct crime of assault upon a peace officer (which is a chargeable offense), just general murder and feliny murder based on general assault. So the state will likely get to present the fact of who the victims were, but not have to prove that the defendants knew who the victims were. Obviously, a cop makes a more sympathetic victim than a thief, so the state gets to have its cake (bring in the fact the victims were peace officers) and eat it to (not have to prove the defendant knew that the victims were peace officers).
At the sentencing phase (assuming a guilty verdict), the state will present the fact that the victims were cops as the aggravating factor justifying the death penalty. Again, the state will not have to demonstrate that the defendants knew that the victims were cops. The quote from the court:
3. The rest of the case has to do with exclusion of evidence (basically for drug-related charges) because of the no-knock nature of the warrant, which is a whole other thread so I basically didn't do much more than skim through it.
To Summarize: The court must decide whether to toss the case before trial because the defendants have immunity. If they are deemed to not have immunity, then they may or may not get an instruction in the guilt/innonence phase jury instruction to determine whether they were acting in defense of their habitation. In neither the guilt/innonce phase nor the sentencing phase must the state prove that the defendants knew that the victims were peace officers. The defendants could get the death penalty without the benefit of such a knowledge instruction being presented to the jury at either phase of the trial.
My opinion: A very pro-state result. Unless the defendants can somehow win at the immunity-from-prosecution stage, the state likely gets a fairly easy road to the death penalty, especially since the state doesn't have to prove knowledge that the victims were peace officers. From a policy standpoint, I think the right to defend one's home overrides the need for a no-knock warrant for mere War on Drug purposes, so that there should be a legislative (or judicial
) fix that strengthens defense-of-habitat in the face of no-knock intrusions. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a no knock intruder that they were cops and I shouldn't have to.
1. The lower court will need to rule pre-trial on whether the defendants have immunity from prosecution. Previously, the lower court planned on waiting until after the evidence was presented at trial to decide whether the defendants were entitled to a defense-of-habitation instruction to the jury (which would then allow the jury to weigh in on whether defense of habitation was there and justifiable).
So this basically gives the defendants a shot at cutting the prosecution off before trial, but this being Georgia (where a 17 year old can get 10 years for letting a 15 year old be his Monica Lewinsky), it might be difficult for an elected judge to let cop killers avoid a trial, especially cop killers with names like Antron Dawayne and Damon Antwon instead of Billy Joe and Bubba Ray. If they don't get immunity (which would be an appealable issue and hopefully some strict constructionists can be found in the Georgia appellate system), then they probably get a chance at getting a defense-of-habitation instruction presented for the jury's consideration. Still an uphill battle when the "victims" are cops instead of burglars.
2. The state is seeking the death penalty, with the death penalty charge being sought for malice murder (basically premeditated murder) and felony murder (murder committed during the course of a felony). The underlying felony for the felony murder charges is assault.
To get the death penalty, the state, during the sentencing phase identified as the sole statutory aggravating circumstance with respect to all counts the fact that [t]he offense of murder was committed against a peace officer while he was engaged in the performance of his official duties.
The defendants think that at the guilt/innonence phase of the trial that the state should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew they were shooting at peace officers. The Court indicates the indictment doesn't charge them with the distinct crime of assault upon a peace officer (which is a chargeable offense), just general murder and feliny murder based on general assault. So the state will likely get to present the fact of who the victims were, but not have to prove that the defendants knew who the victims were. Obviously, a cop makes a more sympathetic victim than a thief, so the state gets to have its cake (bring in the fact the victims were peace officers) and eat it to (not have to prove the defendant knew that the victims were peace officers).
At the sentencing phase (assuming a guilty verdict), the state will present the fact that the victims were cops as the aggravating factor justifying the death penalty. Again, the state will not have to demonstrate that the defendants knew that the victims were cops. The quote from the court:
3. The rest of the case has to do with exclusion of evidence (basically for drug-related charges) because of the no-knock nature of the warrant, which is a whole other thread so I basically didn't do much more than skim through it.
To Summarize: The court must decide whether to toss the case before trial because the defendants have immunity. If they are deemed to not have immunity, then they may or may not get an instruction in the guilt/innonence phase jury instruction to determine whether they were acting in defense of their habitation. In neither the guilt/innonce phase nor the sentencing phase must the state prove that the defendants knew that the victims were peace officers. The defendants could get the death penalty without the benefit of such a knowledge instruction being presented to the jury at either phase of the trial.
My opinion: A very pro-state result. Unless the defendants can somehow win at the immunity-from-prosecution stage, the state likely gets a fairly easy road to the death penalty, especially since the state doesn't have to prove knowledge that the victims were peace officers. From a policy standpoint, I think the right to defend one's home overrides the need for a no-knock warrant for mere War on Drug purposes, so that there should be a legislative (or judicial
) fix that strengthens defense-of-habitat in the face of no-knock intrusions. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a no knock intruder that they were cops and I shouldn't have to.
)
