Challenging a TN Conviction by Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

[justicefinder]

Hello the attached is part of an issue being raised in a T.N. post-conviction proceeding along with several other claims. Does this have the significant legal merit and prejudice that would require reversal? Please give me your thoughts and opinion.

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM SENTENCE OR CONVICTION

Conviction should be vacated because Petitioner did not receive due process as required by the fifth and fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution which states in pertinent part, “the government will not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”.
Trial counsel failed to disclose to the court, when there was a duty to disclose, evidence in his possession concerning the central issue of the case, in a manner which constituted professional misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and exasperated into fraud upon the court.

Summary
On September 26th, 2009, the defendant was arrested and taken into police custody where he remained until trial. Approximately January 2010 the defendant explained to trial counsel, UnnameCounsel, the intricate details surrounding his self-defense shooting. Those details included the location of the firearms involved in the shooting. Counsel volunteered to retrieve these items from Murfreesboro, TN. During trial, counsel instructed the defendant not to tell the courts via his testimony that he had retrieved the missing firearms.
Judge Craft granted the motion for discovery and reciprocal discovery filed by counsel and the state, respectively, pursuant to TN R. Crim Pr 16. In pertinent part that motion stated, “A party who discovers additional evidence or material before or during trial shall promptly disclose its existence to the other party.” Counsel’s “duty to disclose” attached the moment Judge Craft issued the court order.
During trial the state began to present evidence of additional unrelated firearms and ammunition recovered during a search warrant of the defendant’s home. Defense counsel made a contemptuous objection on the admissibility of these firearms. The state argued and the trial court agreed that because they didn’t have the actual weapon used in the shooting, they needed to show the defendant had other firearms, but not the weapon used in the shooting. This was to infer that the defendant possessed the missing firearms. See page 11.
Counsel failed to disclose to the trial court his possession of the firearm in question. Counsel also failed to disclose his knowledge of there being other firearms missing other than the single firearm in question. An HK USP, Sig Sauer P229, and a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun were all unaccounted for in trial. This failure to disclose subsequently caused a domino effect, negatively impacting the defense, influencing the trial jury and trial court decisions in a manner that aided in the defendant’s conviction.
On February 2014, four years after the trial, counsel admitted to Judge Craft of his possession of the missing firearms. Counsel was later ordered by the court to turn over said firearms.

- This is the referenced exchange held outside the jury’s presence in regards to the unrelated firearms -

THE COURT: I understand. Well, so I think what the State is saying is it’s relevant because [Defendant] had all these other guns and their ammunition and he had 9 millimeter ammunition, so its significance is that was the only type of weapon that was missing; is that what you’re indicating?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, yes.

THE COURT: Indicating that he may have circumstantially may have disposed of the weapon?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So that it couldn’t be matched.

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Well, I’m looking at State versus Reid, R-E-ID for the court reporter. 213 S.W.3d page 8, 13, and 14. And that was in a case of a 404(b) hearing where they found a bunch of guns at Mr. Reid’s house and they said that as far as 404(b) is concerned, it’s not against the law to have a gun. And so for that reason it’s not a crime or wrongful act and there’s no 404(b) problem. And the Supreme Court said, “In our view, the ownership of these weapons standing alone does not constitute a crime.” The testimony that the witnesses saw the defendant in the possession of a weapon similar to those used in the crimes did not necessarily constitute evidence of a bad act. In this case, looking at 403 instead of 404(b). Looking at 403 it says that it’s a rule of inclusion in that those items are admissible unless they’re substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. I can see the relevance of the other guns and ammunition and the 9 millimeter ammunition with the absence of a gun. So under those circumstances, I’m going to allow those. But I’ll be glad to give an instruction to the jury if you want me to, . . . that it’s not a crime to own a gun. Or you could just argue that to the jury. Whatever you need me to do.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well your Honor, in one respect there may be an undue prejudice attached to it. There’s one handgun that – like one I’ve never scene [sic] before in my life.

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: I don’t disagree with [defense counsel].

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . I believe that firearm would be prejudicial, unduly prejudicial, and outweighing probative value.

THE COURT: And how so?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just because of the way it looks.

THE COURT: Well, it’s a large gun. It’s a Taurus Raging Bull is the name of it. I’ve seen them advertised. It’s just a large caliber weapon, but it’s not – it doesn’t have a banana clip or anything like that. Is there – I mean, as far as prejudicial –you said unduly – you know, my question is: Is it unfairly prejudicial? I just don’t – as long as there’s not going to be an allegation that he’s used these weapons in other crimes or is possessing them illegally, I just don’t see the damage. How many other guns are there?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: The other one is this guy [sic].

THE COURT: Okay. There are just two others?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir. And if [the court deputy] wants to check these?

THE COURT: Here. Hand that back. All right. This is a –

[Lieutenant Sparks]: AR-15 rifle.

THE COURT: What is it, sir?

[Lieutenant Sparks]: It’s a Bushmaster AR-15 .223 caliber.

THE COURT: Okay. .223 caliber. Well, and my view obviously – and here again I’m not an expert, but these guns do not fire 9 millimeter cartridges. It’s clear to me that they don’t.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that’s my point.

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Well I mean, and for that reason that’s why they’re probative is that he has ammunition for a 9 millimeter but they don’t use it. So, that would imply that he has a 9millimeter which is not present which would imply that he disposed of one circumstantially so that it could not be matched with the bullets taken from the body. So under those circumstances, I’m going to deny your motion. Whether we call it just a 404(b) motion or 403 or 401 relevance motion, I find that they’re relevant and I don’t find any unfair prejudice in showing those weapons.state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

Your matter is beyond the scope of this (or any) internet forum. Seek local counsel.

 

[quincy]

Hello the attached is part of an issue being raised in a T.N. post-conviction proceeding along with several other claims. Does this have the significant legal merit and prejudice that would require reversal? Please give me your thoughts and opinion.

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM SENTENCE OR CONVICTION

Conviction should be vacated because Petitioner did not receive due process as required by the fifth and fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution which states in pertinent part, “the government will not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”.
Trial counsel failed to disclose to the court, when there was a duty to disclose, evidence in his possession concerning the central issue of the case, in a manner which constituted professional misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and exasperated into fraud upon the court.

Summary
On September 26th, 2009, the defendant was arrested and taken into police custody where he remained until trial. Approximately January 2010 the defendant explained to trial counsel, UnnameCounsel, the intricate details surrounding his self-defense shooting. Those details included the location of the firearms involved in the shooting. Counsel volunteered to retrieve these items from Murfreesboro, TN. During trial, counsel instructed the defendant not to tell the courts via his testimony that he had retrieved the missing firearms.
Judge Craft granted the motion for discovery and reciprocal discovery filed by counsel and the state, respectively, pursuant to TN R. Crim Pr 16. In pertinent part that motion stated, “A party who discovers additional evidence or material before or during trial shall promptly disclose its existence to the other party.” Counsel’s “duty to disclose” attached the moment Judge Craft issued the court order.
During trial the state began to present evidence of additional unrelated firearms and ammunition recovered during a search warrant of the defendant’s home. Defense counsel made a contemptuous objection on the admissibility of these firearms. The state argued and the trial court agreed that because they didn’t have the actual weapon used in the shooting, they needed to show the defendant had other firearms, but not the weapon used in the shooting. This was to infer that the defendant possessed the missing firearms. See page 11.
Counsel failed to disclose to the trial court his possession of the firearm in question. Counsel also failed to disclose his knowledge of there being other firearms missing other than the single firearm in question. An HK USP, Sig Sauer P229, and a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun were all unaccounted for in trial. This failure to disclose subsequently caused a domino effect, negatively impacting the defense, influencing the trial jury and trial court decisions in a manner that aided in the defendant’s conviction.
On February 2014, four years after the trial, counsel admitted to Judge Craft of his possession of the missing firearms. Counsel was later ordered by the court to turn over said firearms.

- This is the referenced exchange held outside the jury’s presence in regards to the unrelated firearms -

THE COURT: I understand. Well, so I think what the State is saying is it’s relevant because [Defendant] had all these other guns and their ammunition and he had 9 millimeter ammunition, so its significance is that was the only type of weapon that was missing; is that what you’re indicating?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, yes.

THE COURT: Indicating that he may have circumstantially may have disposed of the weapon?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So that it couldn’t be matched.

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Well, I’m looking at State versus Reid, R-E-ID for the court reporter. 213 S.W.3d page 8, 13, and 14. And that was in a case of a 404(b) hearing where they found a bunch of guns at Mr. Reid’s house and they said that as far as 404(b) is concerned, it’s not against the law to have a gun. And so for that reason it’s not a crime or wrongful act and there’s no 404(b) problem. And the Supreme Court said, “In our view, the ownership of these weapons standing alone does not constitute a crime.” The testimony that the witnesses saw the defendant in the possession of a weapon similar to those used in the crimes did not necessarily constitute evidence of a bad act. In this case, looking at 403 instead of 404(b). Looking at 403 it says that it’s a rule of inclusion in that those items are admissible unless they’re substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. I can see the relevance of the other guns and ammunition and the 9 millimeter ammunition with the absence of a gun. So under those circumstances, I’m going to allow those. But I’ll be glad to give an instruction to the jury if you want me to, . . . that it’s not a crime to own a gun. Or you could just argue that to the jury. Whatever you need me to do.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well your Honor, in one respect there may be an undue prejudice attached to it. There’s one handgun that – like one I’ve never scene [sic] before in my life.

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: I don’t disagree with [defense counsel].

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . I believe that firearm would be prejudicial, unduly prejudicial, and outweighing probative value.

THE COURT: And how so?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just because of the way it looks.

THE COURT: Well, it’s a large gun. It’s a Taurus Raging Bull is the name of it. I’ve seen them advertised. It’s just a large caliber weapon, but it’s not – it doesn’t have a banana clip or anything like that. Is there – I mean, as far as prejudicial –you said unduly – you know, my question is: Is it unfairly prejudicial? I just don’t – as long as there’s not going to be an allegation that he’s used these weapons in other crimes or is possessing them illegally, I just don’t see the damage. How many other guns are there?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: The other one is this guy [sic].

THE COURT: Okay. There are just two others?

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Yes, sir. And if [the court deputy] wants to check these?

THE COURT: Here. Hand that back. All right. This is a –

[Lieutenant Sparks]: AR-15 rifle.

THE COURT: What is it, sir?

[Lieutenant Sparks]: It’s a Bushmaster AR-15 .223 caliber.

THE COURT: Okay. .223 caliber. Well, and my view obviously – and here again I’m not an expert, but these guns do not fire 9 millimeter cartridges. It’s clear to me that they don’t.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And that’s my point.

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Well I mean, and for that reason that’s why they’re probative is that he has ammunition for a 9 millimeter but they don’t use it. So, that would imply that he has a 9millimeter which is not present which would imply that he disposed of one circumstantially so that it could not be matched with the bullets taken from the body. So under those circumstances, I’m going to deny your motion. Whether we call it just a 404(b) motion or 403 or 401 relevance motion, I find that they’re relevant and I don’t find any unfair prejudice in showing those weapons.state (only U.S. law)?

Are you the one challenging the conviction?

I agree with Zigner that what you are asking exceeds the scope of the forum. If you are the one involved here, you will want to seek out help in Tennessee.

Here is a link to Innocence Projects Contacts; http://www.truthinjustice.org/ipcontacts.htm

Here is a link for access to Tennessee's Rules of Professional Conduct: http://www.tba.org/info/tennessee-rules-of-professional-conduct

 

[justicefinder]

Thank you for the information. We have already reached out to the T.N. Innocence project and they do not handle self-defense cases.

I should have been more specific with my inquiry. This is a case were the defendant claimed self-defense to a first degree murder charge and defense counsel took permanent concealed possession of the "murder weapon". The court made several decisions against the defendant based on not having the “murder weapon”.
Basically what I want to know is can this be considered ineffective assistance of counsel or “fraud on the court”. During trial, defense counsel argued a motion to the trial court about the missing firearm as if he had no knowledge of its whereabouts. Isn’t that “fraud on the court” by definition?
We have an attorney that was appointed by the trial court who amended the originally pro se filed petition. At this time he hasn’t expressed any significant interest in pursuing this issue.
We have also already notified the T.N. Board of Professional Responsibility. Their response was “We cannot take any action until the trial court makes a post-conviction ruling that your counsel was ineffective.”
Any advice would be most helpful. I have access to Westlaw, and Lexis Nexus. Thus far, I have not found any similar situated cased that can point me in the right direction other than the ones referenced above.

 

[TigerD]

There is a difference between committing an ethical violation or a crime and being ineffective.

Your case and the details are, as you were previously advised, far too complicated for an internet forum. You need to sit down with an attorney in your state that is well versed in both criminal trial practice and appellate practice.

That said, you may find some difficulty winning with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim - courts have tolerated some pretty inexcusable conduct from defense lawyers without finding ineffective assistance of counsel.

Good luck.

TD

 

[latigo]

There is a difference between committing an ethical violation or a crime and being ineffective. (?) . . . . Good luck. TD

And "good luck" to anyone struggling to make sense of that!

 

[latigo]

It is true that the protections against compelled self incrimination applies to oral testimony and not items of physical evidence. Perhaps I'm missing something or just being normally obtuse, still I fail to see how the failure to produce the subject weapons in anyway "negatively impacted the defense" or adversely "influenced the jury." Or how their production could of had a favorable influence.

I just don't see any merit in an argument that under the given circumstances physical items that were not introduced into evidence could have effected the verdict. Contrarily the inability of the state to produce a balistically matching weapon tied to the defendant would seemingly be harmful to the state's case.

Also I am very much in agreement with counsel that allowing the production of weapons totally unrelated to the crime and particularly of the type described was unduly prejudicial. And that an instruction as to the non criminality of such possession would not overcome that prejudice.

In sum I think the petitioner is grasping for straws where there are no straws.

 

[quincy]

Thank you for the information. We have already reached out to the T.N. Innocence project and they do not handle self-defense cases.

... defense counsel argued a motion to the trial court about the missing firearm as if he had no knowledge of its whereabouts. Isn�t that �fraud on the court� by definition?
We have an attorney that was appointed by the trial court who amended the originally pro se filed petition. At this time he hasn�t expressed any significant interest in pursuing this issue ...

It can be true that, if you cannot interest any attorney in your case, you do not have much of a case. This does not mean you should give up searching for one that might assist you. It just means you might have to search for awhile.

No one here can tell you if the attorney's failure to disclose knowledge of the firearm was ineffective counsel or not. It is possible that the attorney believed the firearm would not benefit the client or could, in fact, harm the client's defense. Despite rulings of the court based on the missing firearm, the final ruling may have been no different even if the weapon was introduced as evidence.

In other words, it is impossible for, and it would be unwise for, anyone on a forum to second-guess the actions of an attorney or to judge him or his actions without personal access to all of the facts. I can tell you that it is not necessarily ineffective counsel for an attorney to act on his best judgment when representing his client, within professional guidelines.

That said, I understand your desperation and if I locate anything that I think might help, I'll post back. But I am afraid the advice offered earlier remains the same - the help you really need falls outside the scope of this forum.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It appears OP is trying to argue that defense council, by suppressing the presence of the gun used to do the shooting caused the defendant to be convicted based on lack of evidence, to wit, said weapon. Rather preferring to assume had the murder weapon been present, the defendant would have been found not guilty. IE It didn't work right the first try so can we try it again a different way.

 

[quincy]

It appears OP is trying to argue that defense council, by suppressing the presence of the gun used to do the shooting caused the defendant to be convicted based on lack of evidence, to wit, said weapon. Rather preferring to assume had the murder weapon been present, the defendant would have been found not guilty. IE It didn't work right the first try so can we try it again a different way.

I think latigo might be right when he said, "the petitioner is grasping for straws when there are no straws."

To prove incompetence of counsel, there is that "but for" element that seems problematic here (i.e., but for the attorney's failure, the result would have been different). It does not seem to me that having a 9mm gun introduced into evidence as the murder weapon would change the outcome if the defendant's conviction was based in part on the presence of 9mm ammunition minus the gun. I suspect the attorney believed the gun would hurt rather than help the defendant's self-defense defense.

Whatever the case, I am not at all sure that I wouldn't be doing the same thing as justicefinder under the same circumstances.

 

[justicefinder]

Very interesting. I know that you cannot offer me any legal advice. I am trying to gather my facts before we speak with the attorney again. If we cannot convince a panel of random individuals that this is a serious and relevant issue, then it will be difficult to convince an attorney or a court.
You are absolutely right concerning ballistics, and that’s one major reason the firearm is relevant. We now have a crime scene reconstruction expert that will be presenting evidence during the post-conviction hearing never seen during trial. My thoughts were counsel was ineffective for not seeking expert assistance during trial. With the firearm being the center of the case and the defendant not denying being the shooter, it seems that the actual firearm being excluded serves no purpose. However, having the firearm available served multiple purposes for the fact finder.
Here is the second reason why we feel the firearm was so important. A little background…
The victim sustained two gunshot wounds from a 9 millimeter. One projectile was recovered from the victim’s shoulder blade. The second projectile according to the medical examiner caused two exit wounds from the victim. This was due to the second projectile fragmenting into two separate pieces .The victim was alleged by the defendant to have attempted shooting the defendant with a .40 caliber firearm. During the shooting, the defendant initially sat on a couch while the victim stood on the opposite side of the room. Detectives recovered a projectile from the couch where the defendant sat. During trial, the state proclaimed that the fully intact un-fragmented bullet the medical examiner earlier said had fragmented was the projectile that exited the victim. This projectile also had no blood or D.N.A on its presence.
In the pre-trial discovery there is a report where the state requested 1) to compare the projectile recovered from the victim’s shoulder in order to prove rather or not they came from the same firearm and 2) to test the D.N.A. of the victim against any potential D.N.A. that may have been on the couch recovered projectile.. Neither report was provided to the defense during trial and is not one of the defendant’s Brady violation claims.
Finally, the first on the scene officers testified to seeing multiple (2 or 3) shell casings on the scene. Without the firearm, the defense could not prove what firearm ( the defendant’s or victim’s ) the shell casings were ejected from or what firearm the couch recovered projectile originated from. There was also no way to prove there were multiple firearms on the scene during the shooting.
Since the defendant alleged being shot at by the victim by the .40 caliber firearms...trial counsel having both firearms in his possession makes this evidence critical…does it not?
I know the circumstances were different, but imagine the outcome of George Zimmerman’s trial had the defense not presented the firearms.
Say it’s not ineffective assistance of counsel. Would it be “New Evidence” ???

 

[quincy]

... With the firearm being the center of the case and the defendant not denying being the shooter, it seems that the actual firearm being excluded serves no purpose.

I do not see how having the gun serves a purpose. I do not see the gun itself as being the center of the case. The defendant admitted shooting the victim and the victim was shot with a 9mm gun. The defendant had 9mm ammunition. All I can see the gun being introduced as evidence would show is that the defendant not only had 9mm ammunition, he had the 9mm gun that held the 9mm ammunition that killed the victim.

Maybe I am missing something here. I probably am. But that is just another reason why a forum is not the proper place to determine if the attorney's failure to introduce the gun as evidence was what led to the defendant's conviction. Everything needs to be personally reviewed to get even close to that determination.

... Say it's not ineffective assistance of counsel. Would it be "New Evidence" ???

It can only be used as "new evidence" if this evidence would change the outcome of the trial. I do not see that the gun itself would lead to a different conclusion. In fact, to my mind and based only on what you have presented in your posts (which is not nearly enough to state anything that has any legal worth at all), it seems as if the gun would further support the conviction.

Again, though, keep searching for an attorney who may see in the case what a forum and its members will never be able to see. Trying to convince "a panel of random strangers" that the case is worth a review is wasted effort. If YOU think it is worth a review, you need to convince an attorney in your area of that - enough so that the attorney will personally sit down and go over all of the facts and provide you with an educated opinion based on these facts.

All I can say about your effort is that I can understand why you might be making it.

 

[dave33]

Very interesting. I know that you cannot offer me any legal advice. I am trying to gather my facts before we speak with the attorney again. If we cannot convince a panel of random individuals that this is a serious and relevant issue, then it will be difficult to convince an attorney or a court.
You are absolutely right concerning ballistics, and that’s one major reason the firearm is relevant. We now have a crime scene reconstruction expert that will be presenting evidence during the post-conviction hearing never seen during trial. My thoughts were counsel was ineffective for not seeking expert assistance during trial. With the firearm being the center of the case and the defendant not denying being the shooter, it seems that the actual firearm being excluded serves no purpose. However, having the firearm available served multiple purposes for the fact finder.
Here is the second reason why we feel the firearm was so important. A little background…
The victim sustained two gunshot wounds from a 9 millimeter. One projectile was recovered from the victim’s shoulder blade. The second projectile according to the medical examiner caused two exit wounds from the victim. This was due to the second projectile fragmenting into two separate pieces .The victim was alleged by the defendant to have attempted shooting the defendant with a .40 caliber firearm. During the shooting, the defendant initially sat on a couch while the victim stood on the opposite side of the room. Detectives recovered a projectile from the couch where the defendant sat. During trial, the state proclaimed that the fully intact un-fragmented bullet the medical examiner earlier said had fragmented was the projectile that exited the victim. This projectile also had no blood or D.N.A on its presence.
In the pre-trial discovery there is a report where the state requested 1) to compare the projectile recovered from the victim’s shoulder in order to prove rather or not they came from the same firearm and 2) to test the D.N.A. of the victim against any potential D.N.A. that may have been on the couch recovered projectile.. Neither report was provided to the defense during trial and is not one of the defendant’s Brady violation claims.
Finally, the first on the scene officers testified to seeing multiple (2 or 3) shell casings on the scene. Without the firearm, the defense could not prove what firearm ( the defendant’s or victim’s ) the shell casings were ejected from or what firearm the couch recovered projectile originated from. There was also no way to prove there were multiple firearms on the scene during the shooting.
Since the defendant alleged being shot at by the victim by the .40 caliber firearms...trial counsel having both firearms in his possession makes this evidence critical…does it not?
I know the circumstances were different, but imagine the outcome of George Zimmerman’s trial had the defense not presented the firearms.
Say it’s not ineffective assistance of counsel. Would it be “New Evidence” ???

From what I've seen (another state) just about any motion has a better likelihood of success. Ineffective assistance requires blatant, obvious, ridiculously stupid decisions to even be considered, even then it is most times denied. Perhaps research some ineffective assistance cases in your state to see if it's the same. goodluck.

 

[quincy]

... Perhaps research some ineffective assistance cases in your state to see if it's the same. goodluck.

I agree with you, dave33, that proving ineffective counsel is not an easy thing to do.

Here, however, are a few links to cases provided to start justicefinder in his research. He can read through them and take from them what courts consider when claims are made of ineffective counsel.

I will not provide excerpts from, or comment on, these cases because I firmly believe that justicefinder needs to seek out assistance in Tennessee.

Harris v. State, 875 S.W. 2d 662 (1994): http://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/supreme-court/1994/875-s-w-2d_662-2.html

Antonio Bigsbee v. State of Tennessee, filed September 22, 2015: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/bigsbeeantonio_0.pdf

Chad Richard Dietz v. State of Tennessee, filed October 16, 2015: http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/dietzchadrichard.pdf

Clarence Nesbit v. State of Tennessee, Filed November 14, 2014: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/nesbitclarence.opn_pdf

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Seriously, The defendant saying I shot you, I am the only one who shot you, is all the jury needs to hear. They do not care whether it was with one gun or two.