DOCSLIB.ORG

The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report . Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice EVALUATING FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN STATE DEATH PENALTY SYSTEMS: The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report An Analysis of Tennessee’s Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices “A system that takes life must first give justice.” John J. Curtin, Jr., Former ABA President March 2007 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice EVALUATING FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN STATE DEATH PENALTY SYSTEMS: The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report An Analysis of Tennessee’s Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices “A system that takes life must first give justice.” John J. Curtin, Jr., Former ABA President March 2007 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION The materials contained herein represent the assessment solely of the ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project and the Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Team and have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. These materials and any forms or agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only. This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the American Bar Association and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. Significant portions of the research were performed on Westlaw courtesy of West Group. Copyright 2007, American Bar Association ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The American Bar Association Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project) is pleased to present this publication, Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report. The Project expresses its great appreciation to all those who helped to develop, draft, and produce the Tennessee Assessment Report. The efforts of the Project and the Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Team were aided by many lawyers, academics, judges, and others who presented ideas, shared information, and assisted in the examination of Tennessee’s capital punishment system. Particular thanks must be given to Banafsheh Amirzadeh, Deborah Fleischaker, Lindsay Glauner, Joshua Lipman, Seth Miller, and Sarah Turberville, the Project staff who spent countless hours researching, writing, editing, and compiling this report. In addition, we would like to thank the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities for their substantive, administrative, and financial contributions. In particular, we would like to thank Brett Pugach and Christine Waring for their assistance in fact-checking and proof-reading sections of the report. We also would like to recognize the research contributions made by Emily Abbott, Nathaniel Evans, Stephen Hatchett, Neal Lawson, Sammi Houston Maifair, Carnita McKeithen, Stacie Odeneal, Anne Passino all of whom were law students at the University of Tennessee College of Law. Additionally, the efforts of Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., in researching and drafting portions of this report, and Raymond Paternoster, Glenn Pierce, and Michael Radelet, in conducting the attached race study, were immensely helpful. Lastly, in this publication, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the Tennessee death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVEH SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... iH INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................H ..................... 1H CHAPTER ONE: ANH OVERVIEW OF TENNESSEE’S DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM .................... 7H I.H DEMOGRAPHICS OF TENNESSEE’S DEATH ROW ........................................................................... 7H II.H THE STATUTORY EVOLUTION OF TENNESSEE’S DEATH PENALTY SCHEME ................................. 8H III.H THE PROGRESSION OF A TENNESSEE DEATH PENALTY CASE FROM ARREST TO EXECUTION .... 19H CHAPTER TWO: COLLECTION,H PRESERVATION, AND TESTING OF DNA AND OTHER TYPES OF EVIDENCE............................................................................................................................. 45H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................... 45H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 47H II.H ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 54H CHAPTER THREE: LAWH ENFORCEMENT IDENTIFICATIONS AND INTERROGATIONS .. 63H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................... 63H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 65H II.H ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 72H CHAPTER FOUR: CRIMEH LABORATORIES AND MEDICAL EXAMINER OFFICES.............. 81H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................... 81H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 82H II.H ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 90H CHAPTER FIVE: PROSECUTORIALH PROFESSIONALISM ........................................................... 97H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................... 97H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 99H II.H ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 113H CHAPTER SIX: DEFENSEH SERVICES............................................................................................... 125H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................. 125H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 126H II.H ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 139H CHAPTER SEVEN: THEH DIRECT APPEAL PROCESS................................................................... 163H IH NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 163H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 164H II.H ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 173H CHAPTER EIGHT: STATEH POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS.............................................. 177H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................. 177H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 179H II.H ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 191H CHAPTER NINE: CLEMENCY............................................................................................................H 209H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................. 209H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 211H II.H ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 219H CHAPTER TEN: CAPITALH JURY INSTRUCTIONS........................................................................ 231H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................. 231H I.H FACTUAL DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................. 232H II.H ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 247H CHAPTER ELEVEN: JUDICIALH INDEPENDENCE ........................................................................ 255H IH NTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUE................................................................................................................. 255H I.H FACTUAL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of TENNESSEE at NASHVILLE February 3, 2005 Session
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 3, 2005 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL DENNIS REID, JR. Automatic Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 38887 John H. Gasaway, III, Judge No. M2001-02753-SC-DDT-DD - Filed May 24, 2005 The defendant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was convicted of two counts of premeditated first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. In imposing a death sentence for each count of first degree murder, the jury found three aggravating circumstances, i.e., that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person, that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that they involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death, and that the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another, had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (5), (6) (2003). In addition, the jury found that the evidence of aggravating circumstances outweighed evidence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(c) (2003). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the death sentences. After the case was docketed in this Court, we entered an order identifying numerous issues for oral argument. We now hold as follows: 1)
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of CRIMINAL APPEALS of TENNESSEE at NASHVILLE October 14, 2003 Session
    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 14, 2003 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL DENNIS REID, JR. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 38887 John H. Gasaway, III, Judge No. M2001-02753-CCA-R3-DD - Filed December 29, 2003 The appellant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The felony murder convictions were merged into the premeditated murder convictions. Thereafter, the jury sentenced the appellant to death based upon the existence of three aggravating circumstances: the appellant had previously been convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of defendant or another; and the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to twenty-five years imprisonment for especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, to run consecutively to his sentences for first degree murder and to a prior out-of-state sentence. On appeal, appellant presents forty-five issues. After an extensive review of the record and the applicable law, we find that none of these issues warrants a reversal of this case. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.
    [Show full text]
  • PAUL DENNIS REID, JR. Petitio
    October Term, 2002 ______________________________________________________________________________ PAUL DENNIS REID, JR. Petitioner, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ______________________________________________________________________________ Petitioner respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court. CITATIONS TO OPINIONS The opinions delivered in this case by other courts are (1) State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002), attached as Appendix (“App.”) A; and (2) State v. Reid, No. M1999-00803-CCA- R3-DD (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), attached as App. B. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS On November 26, 2002, the Tennessee Supreme Court filed its opinion in State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (Tenn. 2002). On December 19, 2001, the Tennessee Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s timely filed rehearing petition. On March 6, 2003, counsel for Petitioner filed an Application for Extension of Time to file this petition. On March 12, 2003, Justice Stevens extended the time for filing this petition to and including April 18, 2003. Because Petitioner has timely filed this petition, this Court has jurisdiction to consider same. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a); Supreme Court Rule 13.3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED This petition involves the following constitutional provisions: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that “[No] State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” STATEMENT OF THE CASE On Sunday morning, February 16, 1997, the bodies of two workers at a Captain D’s Restaurant were discovered in the restaurant.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Supreme Court BAKER V. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
    U.S. Supreme Court BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) 369 U.S. 186 BAKER ET AL. v. CARR ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. No. 6. Argued April 19-20, 1961. Set for reargument May 1, 1961. Reargued October 9, 1961. Decided March 26, 1962. Appellants are persons allegedly qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly of Tennessee representing the counties in which they reside. They brought suit in a Federal District Court in Tennessee under 42 U.S.C. 1983, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to redress the alleged deprivation of their federal constitutional rights by legislation classifying voters with respect to representation in the General Assembly. They alleged that, by means of a 1901 statute of Tennessee arbitrarily and capriciously apportioning the seats in the General Assembly among the State's 95 counties, and a failure to reapportion them subsequently notwithstanding substantial growth and redistribution of the State's population, they suffer a "debasement of their votes" and were thereby denied the equal protection of the laws guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the 1901 statute is unconstitutional and an injunction restraining certain state officers from conducting any further elections under it. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and that no claim was stated upon which relief could be granted. Held: 1. The District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the federal constitutional claim asserted in the complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • Max Soffar's Last Appeal
    Grits for Breakfast: Max Soffar’s Last Appeal 8/21/14 3:30 PM 1 More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In GRITS FOR BREAKFAST WELCOME TO TEXAS JUSTICE: YOU MIGHT BEAT THE RAP, BUT YOU WON'T BEAT THE RIDE. TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2014 SOUTHERN, DAILY AND GOOD FOR YOU Max Soffar’s Last Appeal Michael Berryhill chairs the journalism department at Texas Southern University. He asked Grits to publish this extended guest post by him on the Max Soffar capital murder case, which also inspired this recent Dallas Morning News editorial. Soffar, who for decades has maintained his innocence and may GRITSFORBREAKFAST AUSTIN, TEXAS have falsely confessed, is terminally ill and likely will not survive until his execution. While on paper he has many years' worth of appeals left before the Grits for Breakfast looks at state can kill him, as a practical matter he probably has just a few months the Texas criminal justice remaining to prove his innocence before death overtakes him. system, with a little politics and whatever else suits the Mr. Berryhill is also the author of The Trials of Eroy Brown, the Murder Case author's fancy thrown in. All opinions are my own. that Shook the Texas Prison System, published by the University of Texas Press. The facts belong to Here's his article in full, with only minor copyediting by yours truly. everybody. Who is this guy? * * * VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE On the last Wednesday of July, a death row convict named Max Soffar gave what may well be his last news interview.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Blue Book 2019-2020
    Tennessee Blue Book 2019-2020 Tre Hargett Secretary of State State of Tennessee The Secretary of State State Capitol Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1102 Tre Hargett 615-741-2819 Secretary of State [email protected] January 2020 My Fellow Tennesseans, On behalf of the State of Tennessee, it is my privilege to dedicate this year’s edition of the 2019-2020 Tennessee Blue Book to the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tennessee’s role is of particular significance in the women’s suffrage movement. Thirty-five states had already ratified the amendment, and all others except Tennessee had voted against ratification or refused to call a special session for consideration of the amendment. When Tennessee became the 36th state to ratify, supporters of women’s suffrage finally gained the necessary number of states required to pass the 19th Amendment. With 2020 marking the centennial of Tennessee’s passage of the 19th Amendment, the cover for this biennial book is yellow, which represents the color of the roses worn by the supporters of women’s suffrage. The yellow cover will be a great way to commemorate Tennessee’s celebration for generations to come. On the following pages, you will read more about the events that led up to the 19th Amendment’s passage in Tennessee and therefore nationally. I hope you will take time to read these pages, and perhaps be inspired to do more research in other sources. It will help you better appreciate the difficult path to winning this victory for women. I encourage you to reflect not only on thewomen’s suffrage movement but also to think about your own participation in elections.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the COURT of CRIMINAL APPEALS of TENNESSEE at NASHVILLE February 11, 2011
    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 11, 2011 PAUL DENNIS REID, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 38887 J. John H. Gasaway, III Criminal Court for Davidson County Nos. 97-C-1836 and 97-C-1834 J. Cheryl Blackburn No. M2009-00128-CCA-R3-PD - Filed August 8, 2011 No. M2009-00360-CCA-R3-PD No. M2009-01557-CCA-R3-PD Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeals as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and the Criminal Court for Davidson County are Affirmed. DAVID H. WELLES, SP. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and THOMAS T. WOODALL, JJ., joined. Bradley A. MacLean and Kelly A. Gleason, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General and Jennifer L. Smith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee OPINION INTRODUCTION Paul Dennis Reid., Jr., is facing seven separate sentences of death resulting from a spree of murders and armed robberies he committed over a three month period of time in the early part of 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • FRIEND V. STATE of TENNESSEE
    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 12, 2006 Session PAUL DENNIS REID, JR., BY AND THROUGH LINDA MARTINIANO, NEXT FRIEND v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 038887 John H. Gasaway, III, Judge No. M2006-01294-CCA-R3-PD - Filed July 3, 2007 Linda Martiniano, “next friend” for Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the post-conviction petition she filed on Reid’s behalf. Although the trial court found that Martiniano qualified as Reid’s “next friend,” the court found that Martiniano’s petition did not sufficiently demonstrate Reid’s incompetence to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the issue. We hold that the trial court erred in its conclusion regarding the prima facie showing. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed; Case Remanded. NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined. Kelly A. Gleason and Nicholas D. Hare, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., by and through Linda Martiniano, next friend. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, Jennifer L. Smith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and Art Bieber, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Background On May 24, 2005, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Reid’s first degree murder convictions and death sentences in this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment Chronology
    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CHRONOLOGY The Tennessee Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the state’s death penalty statute. Here is a chronology of capital punishment in Tennessee. 1796 - Tennessee becomes a state. Common law allowed the death penalty, generally by hanging. The first of three state Constitutions also refers to “capital offenses.” 1829 - Tennessee adopts a new criminal code, continuing to allow capital punishment by hanging. 1834 - The Second Tennessee Constitution contains identical language as the first on capital offenses. 1870 - Third state Constitution (which, although amended since, remains in effect) contains the same language as the first two on capital offenses. 1888 - Electrocution is authorized as a method of capital punishment in New York. That state’s legislature approves this method in carrying out death sentences. Tennessee continues use of gallows. 1909 - Executions are moved from the county of conviction to the state prison. 1913 - Tennessee replaces hanging with the electric chair as its method of execution. 1915-16 - The death penalty resumes with electrocution. Executions reach peak in the state during the 1930s, when 47 convicts are put to death in the electric chair. 1960 - The last Tennessee execution by electrocution is held Nov. 7, when William Tines is executed for rape. 1972 - The U.S. Supreme Court declares in Furman vs. Georgia that the death penalty is unconstitutionally cruel and inhuman. 1974 - The General Assembly responds with a new death penalty statute, declared unconstitutional by the state’s high court. 1976 - The U.S. Supreme Court allows states to reinstate capital punishment. Tennessee adopts a new statute.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Tennessee at Nashville
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE PAUL DENNIS REID, JR., ) by and through Linda Martiniano, ) CASE NO.______________________ ) Petitioner, ) CCA No. M2006-01294-CCA-R3-PD ) ) Montgomery County Circuit Court ) Trial Court No. 38887 STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Death Penalty Post-Conviction ) EXECUTION DATE: June 28, 2006 Respondent. ) MOTION FOR REVIEW OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING TRAP 3 APPEAL OF RIGHT OF DISMISSAL OF POST-CONVICTION PETITION EXPEDITED HEARING REQUESTED Pursuant to the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court, Rule 28, Section 10(C), Linda Martiniano, as next friend for Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., respectfully moves this Court to 1) review the June 23, 2006, Order (Attachment 1) of the Court of Criminal Appeals denying a stay of execution pending a T.R.A.P. 3 appeal of right from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s June 21, 2006, Order (Attachment 2) denying a stay of execution; 2) set aside the Order denying a stay of execution; and 3) enter an Order granting a stay of execution pending the appeal of right from the Circuit Court’s June 13, 2006 Order (Attachment 3), dismissing this post-conviction petition. An expedited hearing on this matter is requested. INTRODUCTION 1. This matter comes before this Court upon a timely motion for review of the June 23, 2006 Order of the Court of Criminal Appeals denying a stay of execution pending an appeal of right upon dismissal of this post-conviction petition filed by Linda Martiniano, next friend, on behalf of her brother, the petitioner. The court below abused its discretion in failing to grant the stay, which should have been entered as a matter of course since the law clearly authorizes an appeal of right in this matter.1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee State Library and Archives GOVERNOR PHIL BREDESEN
    State of Tennessee Department of State Tennessee State Library and Archives GOVERNOR PHIL BREDESEN PAPERS, 2003-2011 COLLECTION SUMMARY Creator: Bredesen, Phil, 1943- Inclusive Dates: 2003-2011 Scope & Content: Governor Phil Bredesen Papers (2003-2011) represent an official record of the time Bredesen spent in office. Totaling approximately 517 linear feet or 955 boxes, the Bredesen Papers consist of office files, correspondence, photographs, and a large amount of audio/visual materials. Materials in the collection span the years 1975-2012 as a large number of these documents crossed over chronologically from one gubernatorial administration to another. If items or files pertaining to a certain issue carried over from one administration to another, the documents for that topic were filed with the latest administration. This explains why some of the items predate the Bredesen administration. While some themes are contained within a single series, materials relating to several topics of interest run throughout the collection, including but not limited to Title VI (Boxes 41, 479, 484, 592, 769, 821, and 935), Hurricane Katrina (Boxes 478, 545, 760, 935, and 938), and Workers’ Compensation (Boxes 45, 480, 573, 592-594, 772, 940). (Please see “Scope & Content” for individual series to view a more detailed description of subjects.) Physical Description/Extent: 517 linear feet Accession/Record Group Number: GP56 Language: English Permanent Location: LXV-LXVII, IX-D-3-5v, I-C-5v (Phonograph Album Box 1) Repository: Tennessee State Library and Archives, 403 Seventh Avenue North, Nashville, Tennessee, 37243-0312 Administrative/Biographical History Phillip Norman Bredesen, Jr. served as the 48th Governor of Tennessee.
    [Show full text]
  • All Questions
    4-H Section 6th Grade Division Q. What Tennessee 4-H tradition started in 1948 and deals with the visible symbol of the State 4-H Council President? A. The Tradition of the Gavel Q. What two organizations served as the forerunners of 4-H in Tennessee? A. The Tomato (girls) and Corn Clubs (boys) Q. What former Tennessee 4-H'er later won 8 national championships in college basketball? A. Pat Head Summit of the Lady Vols (former 4-H member in Cheatham County) Q. How many judging teams are offered in Tennessee 4-H? A. 13 Q. What is the most common way to earn a trip to National 4-H Congress? A. Be a state winner in a 4-H project Q. Peyton Manning was the guest speaker at what Tennessee 4-H event? A. State 4-H Roundup (in 1998) Q. In what way have Pat Summitt and John Ward participated in the Tennessee Jr. Livestock Expo? A. They served as guest auctioneers (they sold the Champion Steer). Q. 4-H members celebrate what product each June? A. Milk or Dairy Products (as part of June Dairy Month) Q. What is an "angel form?" A. A 4-H event activity form (also known as a 600A form) Q. What online Senior High contest did Tennessee begin participation in 2003? A. LifeSmarts Q. What species of animal has recently been included in the Livestock Judging Contest? A. Goats Q. How many steers can a 4-H member show at EXPO? A. 3 head Q. The Photo Search Contest is open to 4-H'ers in what grades? A.
    [Show full text]