DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Legal Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Legal Document NO. 14-70040 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit MAX ALEXANDER SOFFAR Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Southern District Of Texas, Houston REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT Jonathan D. Landers Andrew G. Horne* Seth Kretzer 2817 W Tc Jester Blvd KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP LAW OFFICE OF SETH Houston, TX 77018 601 Lexington Avenue KRETZER (713) 301-3153 New York, NY 10022 440 Louisiana Street #200 (212) 446-4800 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 775-3050 *Counsel of Record April 15, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE STATE COURT’S EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE UNDERCUTTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE STATEMENTS SOFFAR SIGNED WAS REASONABLE DESPITE CRANE v. KENTUCKY, 476 U.S. 683 (1986). ............... 1 II. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE STATE COURT PROPERLY APPLIED STRICKLAND v. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) WHEN IT FOUND COUNSEL EFFECTIVE DESPITE THEIR FAILURE TO INTERVIEW WITNESSES WHO WOULD HAVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE GUILT OF AN ALTERNATIVE PERPETRATOR. ................................................ 10 III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE STATE COURT REASONABLY APPLIED CULOMBE v. CONNECTICUT, 367 U.S. 568 (1961) WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT SOFFAR SIGNED THE STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY. ............................................................................. 19 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960) ......................................................................... 20, 21 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) ........................................................................... 3, 10 Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (1987) ................................................................................. 9 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) ................................................................................. 5 Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) ............................................................................... 22 Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) ................................................................................. 4 Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) ..................................................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 569 (1961) ............................................................. 19, 20, 21, 23 Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) ......................................................................... 3, 4 Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) ............................................................................... 19 Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191 (1957) ............................................................................... 21 Forsythe v. State, 664 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1983, pet ref’d) ...................... 5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d) Page(s) Foster v. Townsley, 243 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2001) .................................................................. 6 Haliym v. Mitchell, 492 F.3d 680 (6th Cir. 2007) ................................................................ 14 Harrison v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) ................................................................................. 11 Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) ........................................................................... 14, 15 Martinez v. Dretke, 404 F.3d 878 (5th Cir. 2005) ................................................................ 11 Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1986) ............................................................ 21, 22 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ............................................................................... 19 Moss v. Hofbauer, 286 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 2002) ................................................................ 14 Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (1961) ............................................................................... 21 Rogers v. State, 774 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), overruled on other grounds, Peek v. State, 106 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) .......................... 14 Soffar v. Cockrell, 300 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2002) ................................................................ 20 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ......................................................................... 10, 18 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d) Page(s) Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) ................................................................................. 2 United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................ 22 United States v. Jones, 287 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2002) ................................................................ 12 United States v. Long, 852 F.2d 975 (7th Cir. 1988) ................................................................ 23 United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................ 23 United States v. Reliford, 210 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2000), judgment vacated on other grounds sub nom Clinton v. United States, 121 S. Ct. 296 (2000) ........................... 13 United States v. Rodgers, 186 F. Supp. 2d 971 (E.D. Wis. 2002) .................................................. 22 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) ............................................................................... 14 White v. Johnson, 153 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1998) .................................................................. 9 Woodward v. Epps, 580 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................................................ 11 STATUTES Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) ................................................... 3 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont’d) Page(s) RULES TEX. R. EVID. 801(d) .................................................................................... 5 v INTRODUCTION In stark contrast to Appellant’s thirteen-page Opening Brief, which limited itself to setting forth the standards of review applicable at this stage of the proceedings and alerting the Court to newly-decided instructive opinions of other courts, Appellee has filed a thirty-five page brief that advances new arguments never before presented to any court and recasts many of the arguments he has previously made in novel ways. To the extent Appellant has already addressed arguments made by Appellee, he will not do so again here. Rather, this submission is limited to addressing the most egregiously erroneous of the newfound arguments and assertions. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE STATE COURT’S EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE UNDERCUTTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE STATEMENTS SOFFAR SIGNED WAS REASONABLE DESPITE CRANE v. KENTUCKY, 476 U.S. 683 (1986). Try as he might, Appellee cannot mount any serious challenge to the inescapable conclusion that Soffar was deprived his constitutional right to present a defense. Soffar’s life depended on showing the jury that (contrary to the prosecution’s contentions) there were no “secret facts” in the statements upon which his conviction rested. The way to do that—indeed, the only way to do that—was to introduce evidence identifying the specific facts the media had reported. This would have established that the very few accurate assertions in the statements were public knowledge. (Appellant’s Mot. at 34-53; Appellant’s Reply at 1-13; Original Brief at 2-6.) Given the context of the case, precluding Soffar from defending himself in that way was devastating. As a threshold matter, Appellee’s claim that “the Court’s application of a new rule to Soffar’s case would be barred by the rules against retroactivity” is meritless. (Appellee’s Br. at 17 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989).) Appellant is not asking for any new rule to be adopted much less applied. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that an accused’s constitutional right to present a defense “would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant’s claim of innocence.” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986). That well-settled rule governs the outcome of this case: The media reports were competent, reliable evidence central to Soffar’s claim of 2 innocence—that his statements were false and unreliable. (Appellant’s Mot. at 41-45; Appellant’s Reply at 9-10; Opening Br. at 3-4.) Accordingly, they should have been admitted. Appellee’s other three procedural arguments likewise fail. First, Soffar’s “description of the standard of review” was not “mistaken.” (Appellee’s Br. at 8 (citing Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015)). As here, the Supreme Court in Davis was faced with a situation in which the state court had assumed error but had ruled that the error was nonetheless harmlessness. Davis, 135 S. Ct. at 2196. Consistent with a long line of prior cases, and consistent with the standard Soffar articulated in his Motion for a Certificate of Appealability and Brief in Support Thereof (the “Motion”), (Appellant’s Mot. at 45), the Supreme Court held that, with regard to the harmless error question, the standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) applies and subsumes the deference afforded under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of TENNESSEE at NASHVILLE October 2, 2002 Session
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 2, 2002 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL DENNIS REID, JR. Direct Appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 97-C-1834 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge No. M1999-00803-SC-DDT-DD - Filed November 26, 2002 In this capital case, the defendant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery for killing two Captain D’s employees and robbing one of the employees. As to each conviction of first degree murder, the jury found in the sentencing hearing that the State had proven three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt – (1) that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, the statutory elements of which involve the use of violence to the person; (2) that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another; and (3) that the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit robbery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (6), and (7) (1997). Finding that these aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury sentenced the defendant to death on each murder conviction. The trial court subsequently imposed a twenty-five-year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the two death sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Nashville Police Department Annual Report 2000
    METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT - 2000 ANNUAL REPORT - DAVIDSON COUNTY - NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE ission Statement: To provide community based police services through crime prevention strategies and partnerships, to ensure a safe and peaceful Nashville. n carrying out our mission, members of the department will continue to value: ♦ Organizational Excellence and Professionalism ♦ The Impartial Enforcement of the Law ♦ The People We Serve and Each Other ♦ Problem-Solving Partnerships ♦ Open Communications ♦ Ethics and Integrity To the Citizens of Nashville s our city welcomed the new Millennium with great excitement and optimism, your police department worked diligently during 2000 to keep crime in check and maintain safe communities throughout Davidson County. Thanks to the support of countless citizens and neighborhood groups, Nashville remains a wonderful, safe city in which to live, work and raise a family. Overall crime during 2000 increased seven percent when compared to 1999; however, it was still well below crime reports for eight years in the 1990’s, 1991-1998. Most notably, rape during 2000 dropped to its lowest level since 1986. Still, there were increases over 1999 in criminal homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny, burglary and auto theft. Crime statistics are known to fluctuate from year to year, and our more than 1200 police officers are dedicated to doing their best to both deter crime and arrest the persons responsible for criminal offenses. Mayor Purcell and I have made it a priority to bring police staffing as close as possible to our authorized strength of 1,302 officers and keep it there. In January, 2000, Mayor Purcell restored a police recruit class that had fallen victim to budget cuts before he took office.
    [Show full text]