Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ROBERT ALLEN DANENBERG, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Georgia --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOHN C. BELL, JR. BELL & BRIGHAM Post Office Box 1547 Augusta, Georgia 30903-1547 (706) 722-2014 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTION PRESENTED What restraints are imposed by the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution upon the methodology for selection, preparation and testimonial presenta- tion of experts who are deemed to be the “court’s witness,” in general and in the context of a state statute that requires the trial court to call an expert deemed to be the “court’s witness” in criminal trials in which an insanity defense has been raised? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING The Petitioner is Robert A. Danenberg. The Re- spondent is the State of Georgia. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Question Presented ................................................ i Parties to the Proceeding ....................................... ii Table of Contents .................................................... iii Table of Authorities ................................................ vi Orders and Opinions Below ................................... 1 Jurisdictional Statement ........................................ 1 Statutory Provisions and Federal Rule Involved ...... 2 Statement of the Case ............................................ 2 Statement of Facts .............................................. 2 Proceedings Below .............................................. 5 Reasons for Granting the Writ ............................... 7 I. The Issue ...................................................... 7 II. The Dilemma Created by Selection and Designation of a Witness as “The Court’s Expert Witness” ........................................... 7 III. Efforts to Delineate Procedural Fairness ... 9 IV. Georgia Law ................................................. 12 V. An Historical Review of the Search for Truth Through Deference to Court’s Ex- perts .............................................................. 13 VI. The Search for Truth in an Imperfect World ............................................................ 16 VII. Unfettered Use of “Courts’ Experts” Of- fends Due Process ........................................ 21 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page VIII. The Writ of Certiorari Should be Granted .... 22 Conclusion ............................................................... 24 APPENDIX: Opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia affirming the order of the Superior Court of Jones County and the judgment of convic- tion, reported as Danenberg v. State, 291 Ga. 439, 729 S.E.2d 315 (2012) .............................. App. 1 Order of the Superior Court of Jones County, Georgia, denying the motion for new trial ...... App. 13 Order of the Supreme Court of Georgia denying the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration ... App. 14 Excerpts from the Brief of Appellant .................... App. 15 Excerpts from the Reply Brief of Appellant .......... App. 20 Excerpts from the Defendant’s amended motion for new trial .......................................................... App. 23 Excerpts from Volume 4 of the criminal trial ........ App. 25 Excerpts from Volume 2 of the competency trial ... App. 33 Georgia Code Ann. § 17-7-130 ........................... App. 38 Rule 706, Federal Rules of Evidence ................ App. 39 Fifth Amendment to the United States Consti- tution .............................................................. App. 41 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1 .................................. App. 41 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page A UNIFORM ACT EMPOWERING THE COURT TO APPOINT EXPERT WITNESSES IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, PRO- VIDING FOR CONFERENCES AND JOINT REPORTS OF EXPERT WITNESSES, AND THE COMPENSATION OF EXPERT WIT- NESSES ......................................................... App. 42 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES Ake v. Oklahoma, 240 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) ............................................... 21 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) ................................. 22 Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 81 S.Ct. 421, 5 L.Ed.2d 428 (1961) .............................. 14 Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009) ............... 22 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) ................................................................ 13 General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512, 138 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) .................... 13, 14 In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 40 S.Ct. 543, 64 L.Ed. 919 (1920) ...................................................... 14 Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 46, 68 S.Ct. 391, 92 L.Ed. 468 (1948) ......................................... 14 Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) ...................................................... 22 Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972) .............................. 22 OTHER FEDERAL CASES Bradley v. Milliken, 620 F.2d 1143 (6th Cir. 1980) ........................................................................ 10 Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996) ................... 9 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page G.K. Las Vegas Limited Partnership v. Simon Property Group, Inc., 671 F.Supp.2d 1203 (D. Nev. 2009) ................................................................ 10 Grothusen v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 603 F.Supp. 486 (E.D. Pa. 1984) ............................. 11 In re: Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 9 Kian v. Mirro Aluminum Co., 88 F.R.D. 351 (E.D. Mich. 1980) .................................................. 7, 8 Liddell v. Board of Education, 667 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1981) ......................................................... 10 Scott v. Spanjer Bros. Inc., 298 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1962) ................................................................. 10 SRI International v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................. 8 United States v. Craven, 239 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 9 United States v. Flores, 2012 WL 2479602 (6th Cir.) .......................................................................... 11 United States v. Green, 544 F.2d 138 (3d Cir. 1976) ........................................................................ 10 United States v. Karnes, 531 F.2d 214 (4th Cir. 1976) .................................................................. 10, 11 Walton v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2006) ......... 9 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page STATE CASES Brannen v. State, 275 Ga. 70, 561 S.E.2d 414 (2002) ....................................................................... 13 Danenberg v. State, 291 Ga. 439, 729 S.E.2d 315 (2012) ........................................................ 1, 6, 12 Howerton v. Danenberg, 279 Ga. 861, 621 S.E.2d 738 (2005) ...................................................... 6 Lamar v. State, 278 Ga. 150, 598 S.E.2d 488 (2004) ....................................................................... 12 Tolbert v. State, 260 Ga. 527, 397 S.E.2d 439 (1990) ....................................................................... 13 FEDERAL STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ....................................................... 1 STATE STATUTES Georgia Code Annotated § 17-7-130.1 ..... 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 MISCELLANEOUS Fifth Amendment to the United States Consti- tution ......................................................................... 2 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1 ............................................. 2 Accepting Daubert’s Invitation: Defining a Role for Court-Appointed Experts in Assessing Sci- entific Validity, 43 Emory L.J. 995 (1994) ................ 8 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Court-Appointed Expert Witness: Scientific Pos- itivism Meets Bias and Deference, 77 Oregon L.Rev. 59 (1998) ....................................... 8, 18, 19, 20 Historical and Practical Considerations Re- garding Expert Testimony, 15 Harvard L.Rev. 40 (1901) ...................................................... 14, 15, 17 Rule 706, Federal Rules of Evidence ............... 2, 12, 16 Some Observations Upon the Opinion Rule and Expert Testimony, 23 Texas L.Rev. 109 (1945) ....... 16 Supreme Court Rule 13 ................................................ 1 Wright & Gold, Federal Practice & Procedure § 6305....................................................................... 10 1 ORDERS AND OPINIONS BELOW Order overruling Defendant’s objection