In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ma rc h 2 7 , 2 0 1 5

S 1 4 A1 6 4 6. HARVEY v . THE S TATE.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t K a

ju l Ha rv e y c h a lle n g e s th e tria l c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h e r p le a in

b a r b a se d o n d o u b le je o p a rd y a fte r h e r f i r s t t r ia l fo r m

u rd e r a n d o th e r c rim e s

e n d e d in a m istria l. We c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t a b use its disc re tio n

in d e te rm in in g th a t A p p e lla n t’s c o u n se l vio la te d th e c o u rt’s pre tria l ru lin g o n a

m o tio n in lim in e a n d i mp r o p e rly re fe rre d to e v id e n c e th a t m a y we ll n o t b e

a d m issib le w h e n h e re fe rre d to Ap p e lla n t’s p o lic e in te rv ie w d u rin g h is o p e n in g

sta te m e n t, a n d th e c o u rt a lso d id n o t a b u se its d isc r e t i o n i n d e c id in g th a t

a lte rn a tiv e s sh o rt o f a m istria l we re in su ffic ie n t to c ure th e h a rm

. Ac c o rd in gly

,

we up h o ld th e d e nia l of th e p le a in b ar. Ou r re je c tio n o f Ap p e l l a n t’s d o u b le

je o p ard y c la im o n th e m e rits m a k e s it u n n e c e ssa ry fo r u s to d e c id e wh e th e r th e

tria l c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g th a t th e c la im w a s friv o lo us a n d a llo win g h e r re tria l

to p ro c e e d . We th e re fo re a ffirm th e tria l c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.1

. I n F e b ru a ry 2 0 13

, Ap p e lla n t a n d h e r b o y frie n d

, La to ris Gro v n e r

,

we re in d ic te d fo r m a lic e m u rd e r a n d o th e r c rim e s in c on ne c tio n with th e b ru ta l

b e a tin g d e a th o f Ap p e lla n t’s m o th e r a n d su bse q u e nt a tte m p ts to a c c e ss h e r b a n k

a c c o u nts i n J u n e 2 0 1 1

. 1 Ap p e lla n t h a d be e n in te rv ie we d b y th e p o lic e fo r

s e v er a l ho u rs, a

n d th e in te rv ie w wa s v id e ota p e d

. On A p ril 1 5

, 20 1 3

, th e fir s t

d a y o f Ap p e lla n t ’s tria l, th e S ta te file d a m otio n in lim in e to p re c lu d e “ th e

d e fe n se fro m

m a kin g o p e n in g sta te m e n ts th a t re fe re n c e se lf[-] se rv in g h e a rsa y

sta te m e n ts m a d e b y th e d e fe n d a n t [ ]” o r a sk in g witn e sse s fo r th e S ta te o r th e

d e fe n se a n y q u e stio n s th a t re fe re n c e su c h sta te m e n ts “ u ntil th e d o or is o p e n e d

b y th e S ta te o r u n til a fte r th e d e fe n d a n t te stifie s.”

Th e tria l c o u rt he ld a h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n

, du rin g wh ic h th e p ro se c u to r

re v e a le d th a t th e S ta te d id n o t in te n d to in tro du c e th e v id e o ta p e o f Ap p e lla n t’s

p o lic e in te rv ie w d u rin g its c a se -in -c h ie f. At t h a t p o in t, A p p e lla n t’s a tto rn e y

,

a ssista n t p u b lic d e fe n d e r Llo y d Ma tth e ws, in dic a te d th a t h e m ig h t se e k to a d m it

a re d a c te d v e rsio n o f th e in te rv ie w, a n d th e c o u rt a sk e d th e p ro se c u to r, “ Wh a t

h a p p e n s if

. . . th e de fe n se p u ts th a t in te rv ie w in

. . . ? ” Th e p ro se c u to r

1 G rovner was tried separately and found g uilty of voluntary manslaug hter and other crimes.

2re sp o n d e d th a t th e S ta te wo uld o b je c t to a n y a tte m

p t by th e d e fe n se to in tro d u c e

Ap p e lla n t’s p o lic e in te rv ie w, d ire c te d th e c o u rt’s a tte n tio n to th e S ta te ’s writte n

m o tio n, an d a

rg u e d

, “ a s it re la te s to th e in te rv ie w, we d o n ’t b e lie v e th a t it sh o u ld

b e re fe re n c e d.” Ma tth e ws u rg e d th e c o u rt to d e ny th e S ta te ’s m o tio n

, e x p la in in g

th a t in h is v ie w, a s th e e v id e nc e u n fo ld e d

, it wa s “ in e vitable ” th a t a t le a st p a rt

o f th e in te rv ie w wo u ld b e p la y e d fo r th e ju ry

, an d th a t “ o n c e [th e ju ro rs] fin d o u t

th e re ’s a v id e o ta

p e

, th e y ’re g o in g to wa n t to . . . se e th a t v id e o ta pe .”

Th e tria l c o u rt g ra n te d th e m o tio n in lim in e , sa y in g :

Th e th ird mo tio n wa s a b o u t th e se lf[-] se rv in g h e a rsa y in th e

d e fe n da n t’s [p o lic e in te rv ie w] . Th e S ta te ’s a sk in g th a t th a t n o t b e

a llo we d to [b e go n e ] in to u n le ss a n d u ntil th e d e fe n d a n t te stifie s.

An d I will in stru c t th e p a rtie s n o t to g o in to a n y sta t e me n ts, a n y

c o n te nts o f h e r sta te m e n ts to th e p o lic e u n til su c h tim e

.

A ju ry wa s th e n im

pa n e le d a n d swo rn

.

Th e n e xt m o rn in g

, th e S ta te m a de its o p e n i n g sta te m e nt, m a k in g n o

re fe re nc e to Ap p e lla n t’s p olic e in te rv ie w. Ma tth e w s fo llo we d with th e o p e n in g

sta te m e n t fo r Ap pe lla n t, te llin g th e ju ry a s h e b e g an :

[T] h is c a se u ltim a te ly b o ils d o wn to a c a se o f a m ista k e n ru sh to

ju d g e m e n t.

. . . Th e p o lic e im m e d ia te ly g lo m o n to my c lie n t a s th e

c o -p e rp e tra to r a

n d th e y n e v e r d e v ia te fro m th e ir sc e n a rio

. . . . I

me a n t h e

. . . le a d d e te c tiv e

, Jo a n n e Su th e rla n d [,] a n d h e r fe llo w

d e te c tiv e s

. . . . Th is wh o le c a se i s n o t a p l a n fo r th e d e c e a se d[’s]

3d e m ise

, b u t a ru sh to ju d g e m e n t to b la m e my c lie n t. N o w w h e n I

sa y ru sh t o j u d g e m e nt, th a t n e c e ssa rily im p lie s th a t so m e th in g is

b e in g o v e rlo o k e d

.

Ma tth e ws re v ie we d wh a t h e sa id th e e v id e n c e wo u ld sh o w, te llin g th e ju ry th a t

th e re wo u ld b e no e v id e n c e o f a p la n o r c on sp ira c y in v o lv in g Ap p e lla n t. He

th e n sa id : “ M y c lie n t, o n b e in g in te rv ie w e d b y th e p o lic e wa s v e ry c o o p e ra tiv e

with th e p o lic e

. S h e su b m itte d h e rse lf to se v e ra l h o urs o f in te rv ie w – .”

At th a t po in t, th e p ro se c u to r o b je c te d

, a n d th e c o u rt h e ld a b e n c h

c o n fe re n c e . Th e p ro se c u to r a rg u e d :

[T] h e ve ry fa c t th a t he ’s re fe re n c in g th is in te rv ie w an d th e fa c t th a t

it e x iste d is a v io la tio n o f th e se lf-se rv in g [h e a rsa y ] m o tio n th a t w e

h a d in re fe re n c e to th a t in te rv ie w.

. . . [T] he m e re fa c t th a t sh e g a v e

o n e is in d ire c t v io la tio n o f th e Mo tio n in Lim in e

.

Ma tth e ws c la im e d th a t h e u n d e rsto od th e S ta te ’s m o tio n a s se e k in g to p re c lu d e

h im fro m m e n tio n in g th e c o n te n ts o f Ap p e lla n t’s sta te m e n t to th e p o l i c e

, n o t

fro m re fe rrin g to th e fa c t th a t a n in te rv ie w h a d ta k e n p la c e

. Ma tth e ws a lso

c l a i me d th a t Ap pe lla n t wo uld te stify a s p a rt o f th e d e fe n se c a se

, b u t th e c o u r t

o b se rv e d

, “ th a t still d o e sn ’t m e a n th e in te rv ie w c o m e s in

. ” Ma tth e ws th e n sa id

,

“ I wa sn ’t g o in g to ta lk a

b o ut th e a c t ua l su b sta n c e o f th e in te rv ie w. I wa s ju st

g o in g to sa y th a t sh e wa s c o o p e ra tiv e .”

4Th e S ta te re qu e ste d a m istria l, a n d th e c o urt se n t o u t th e ju ry so th e c o urt

c o u ld h e a r fu rth e r a rg u m e n t fro m c o u n se l. Afte r q u o tin g th e S ta te ’s m o tio n in

lim in e , th e p ro se c u to r a rg u e d th a t “ b y in dic a tin g th a t [Ap p e lla n t]

. . . sp o k e to

th e po lic e fo r h o u rs, th a t’s a d ire c t re f e r e n c e .” Ma tth e ws re ite ra te d his c la im

th a t h e u n d e rsto o d th e S ta te ’s m otio n to m e a n th a t th e p ro se c u to r “ d id n o t wa n t

m e to a c tu a lly m e n tio n th e c o n te n t o f th e sta te m e n ts. I d id n ’t th in k

. . . th e re

wa s a big d e a l a

b o ut wh e th e r I m e n tio n e d th e fa c t th a t th e re wa s a n in te rv ie w.”

As h e h a d in th e h e a r in g b e fo re th e m otio n wa s g ra n te d

, Ma tth e ws a g a in

a sse rte d th a t th e fa c t o f th e po lic e in te rv ie w wa s “ in e v itab ly g o in g to c o m e o u t”

o n c e Ap p e l la n t te stifie d

, b e c a use th e S ta te w o u ld th e n u se h e r in te rv ie w

re s p o n s e s to im

pe a c h h e r te stim o n y

. Ma tth e ws a d d e d th a t e v e n if h e v io la te d

th e c o u rt’s p re tria l ru lin g

, a n in stru c tio n to th e ju ry to d isre g a rd h is re m a rk s

wo u ld b e su ffic ie n t to c u re a n y h a rm

.

Th e c o u rt re sp o n d e d to th is su g g e ste d re m e dy b y sa y in g:

[T] h e ju ry ha s ju st h e a rd th a t y o u r c lie n t g a ve a th re e h o u r in te rv ie w

to th e p o lic e

. . . . Y o u ’v e ju st t o l d t h e j u ry [Ap p e lla n t] h a s b e e n

c o o p e ra tiv e

, sh e g a ve a le n g th y in te rv ie w to th e p o lic e a fte r I to ld

y o u n o t to m e n tio n th e in te rv ie w, y e ste rd a y

.

5Th e p ro se c u to r a rg u e d th a t a lim itin g in stru c tio n wo uld b e in su ffic ie n t to c u re

th e ha rm

, b e c a

u s e d e s p ite Ma tth e ws’s c la im th a t Ap p e lla n t wo u ld te stify

, th e

S ta te c o u ld n o t c o m

p e l h e r to d o so

, a n d if Ap p e lla n t u ltim a te ly d e c lin e d to ta k e

th e sta n d d u rin g th e d e fe n se c a se

, th e n “ wh a t we h a v e h a n g in g o u t th e re is sh e ’s

b e e n c o o p e ra tiv e in re fe re n c e t o t h e p o lic e

. Th a t’s th e p o in t of a Mo tio n in

Lim in e a n d Mr. Ma tth e ws k n o ws b e tte r.” T h e p ro se c u to r a d d e d, “Th is is n o t th e

first tim e we ’v e h a d a se lf-se rv in g h e a rsa y m o tio n in th is c o u rtro o m a nd it’s n o t

th e first tim e we ’v e ha d o n e with Mr. M a tth e ws. I th in k th a t wa s a d ire c t a c t to

v io la te th e Mo tio n in Lim in e a n d we wo u ld a sk fo r a m istria l.”

Afte r a sh o r t r e c es s to c o n sid e r th e m a tte r, th e tria l c o u rt a sk e d if e ith e r

sid e h a d a n y a d d itio n a l in p u t. Th e p ro se c u to r sa id :

Th e S ta te h a s c o m m itte d in th e o p e n in g sta te m e nt a n d b a se d o n tria l

stra te gy th a t th e d e fe nd a n t’s se lf-se rv in g sta te me n ts w o u ld no t b e

re fe re n c e d

. Th e ir c o n te n t wa s re fe re n c e d [ b y Ma tth e ws] b y

in d ic a tin g th a t [Ap p e lla n t] wa s c oo p e ra tiv e with th e p o lic e

, a s we ll

a s th e e x iste n c e o f th a t se lf-se rv in g sta te m e n t, wh ic h is in d ire c t

c o n tra v e n tio n o f th is C o u rt’s ru lin g [o n ] th e th ird M o tio n in Lim in e

. An d we d o n ’t b e lie v e th a t a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n wo u ld b e su ffic ie n t

. . . . [W] e d o n’t be lie v e it’s [ a n ] a b u se o f d isc re tio n to g ra nt a

m istria l wh e n th e re h a s b e e n a ffirm a tiv e c o n d u c t t o me n tio n it in

o p e n i n g s t a te m e n t. T h e b e ll h a s a lre a d y b e e n ru n g

. An d if th e

d e fe n da n t d e c id e s n o t to te stify

, th e S ta te h a s a n a d ditio n a l b u rd e n

o f p ro v in g wh y we d id n’t p re se n t th is

. . . v id e o ta p e d sta te m e n t

. . . th a t wa s re fe re n c e d.

6Ma tth e ws re p lie d th a t he h a d “ a lre a dy c o m m itte d to th e ju ry th a t [Ap p e lla n t] is

g o in g to te stify ,” a sse rte d a g a in th a t h e th o u g h t th a t th e c o u rt’s p re tria l ru lin g

o n ly p r e v e n te d h im

fro m m e n tio n in g th e c o nte n ts o f th e p o lic e in te rv ie w, a n d

re q u e ste d th a t th e c ou rt g iv e a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n

, a sk th e ju ro rs if a n y o f th e m

c o u l d n o t fo llo w th e in stru c tio n

, a n d th e n g o fo rwa rd with th e tria l if n o o n e

ra ise d a h a n d

.

Th e t r i a l c o u rt fo u n d th a t Ma tth e ws’s re m a rk s to th e ju ry v io la te d th e

ru lin g o n th e m o tio n in lim in e a n d th a t a ju ry in stru c tio n w o u ld b e in su ffic ie n t

to c u re th e h a rm , e x p la in in g:

Alth o u g h th e ju ry h a s n o t h e ard a n y re fe re nc e to th e c o n te n t of wh a t

[Ap p e lla n t] sa id

, th e y h e a rd th a t sh e h a d b e e n c o o p e ra tiv e a n d m a d e

a sta te m e n t. S p o k e w i th p o lic e fo r

. . . se v e ra l h o u rs.

. . . [T] h e re

wa s a M o tio n in Lim in e g ra n te d y es t e rd a y to

– I sa id th e re wo u ld

b e n o re fe re n c e to th a t sta te m e n t. An d n o w

– th e ju r y h a s h e a rd

th e re is a sta te m e n t. Ev e n if th e d e fe n d a n t te stifie s, th e re is n o

g u a ra nte e t h a t th a t sta te m e n t c o m e s in

. An d th e re ’s c e rta in ly n o

wa y th a t th e Co u rt c a n fo rc e h e r to te stify if sh e c ho ose s n o t to

te stify wh e n we g e t to th e d e fe n se ’s p o rtio n o f th e tria l. An d th e n

th e ju ry is g o in g to

, I th in k

, wo n d e r, we ll, if sh e m a d e a sta te m e n t

to th e po lic e

, wh y h a v e n ’t we h e ard it. An d if I te ll th e m

, we ll, I’v e

e x c lu de d it, it se e m s to m e th a t [th e ] n a tu ra l in c lin a tio n of th e ju ry

is to sa y

, we ll, th e po lic e m u st h a v e d o n e w ro n g be c a u se th e y c an ’t

g e t t h a t in te rv ie w in o r so m e th in g

. Or th e y will sta rt wo n de rin g

wh y th e in te rv ie w d o e sn ’t c o m e in a n d th e y ’ll sa y

, w e ll, th e b u rd e n

is o n th e S ta te

, th e S ta te d id n ’t p ro d u c e th is in te rv ie w

, wh a t’s g o in g

o n

. An d I ju s t f

e e l t h at it’s sa fe r. I ha te to g ra n t a m istria l a fte r

7we ’v e sp e n t a d a y pic k in g a ju ry

, bu t I ju st d o n ’t se e h ow to u n-rin g

th a t b e ll. I’m

g o in g to g ra nt th e S ta te ’s m o tio n fo r m istria l.

Afte r d isc h a rg in g th e ju ry

, th e c o u rt a sk e d c o u n se l a b o u t a n e w tria l d a te

.

Th e p ro se c u to r th e n m ov e d t o d ism iss Ap pe lla nt’s sta tu to ry sp e e dy tria l d e m a n d

in lig h t o f th e m istria l, a n d th e c o urt sa id

, “ I fin d th a t th e m istria l in d u c e d b y th e

d e fe n se ’s c on d u c t wa i v e s t h e sp e e d y tria l d e m an d .” Th e re tria l wa s se t fo r

a b o u t two m o n th s la te r, in Ju n e 2 0 1 3

.

On Ap ril 2 6

, Ap p e lla n t file d a p le a in b a r, c o n te n d in g th a t d o ub le je o p a rd y

b a rre d h e r fro m b e in g re trie d b e c a u se th e re wa s n o m a n ife s t n e c e s s i ty fo r th e

m istria l a n d th e tria l c o u rt fa ile d to c o n sid e r le ss dra stic a lte rn a tiv e s. On Ma y

6 a n d a g a in on Ma y 3 0

, Ap p e lla n t a m e n d e d he r p le a to a lle g e th a t th e p ro se c u to r

h a d m ov e d fo r a m istria l to “ b uy tim e ” to b u ttre ss a we a k c a s e

, n o t in g th a t

Ap p e lla n t h a d file d a sta tu to ry sp e e d y tria l d e m a n d

.

On Ju n e 5

, th e tria l c o u rt h e ld a n ev i d e n tia ry he a rin g a t wh ic h th e

p ro se c u to r te stifie d

. Du rin g c ro ss-e x a m in a tio n b y Ma tth e ws, th e p ro se c u to r

sa id

, “ y o u [Ma tth e ws] n o t o nly re fe re n c e d th e fa c t th a t th e re wa s a n in te rv ie w

g iv e n, y o u a lso re fe re n c e d th e c on te n ts b y i n d i c at i n g th a t Ap pe lla n t wa s

c o o p e ra tiv e d u rin g th a t in te rv ie w.” Ma tth e ws a sk e d if h is te llin g th e ju ry th a t

8Ap p e lla n t wa s “ c o o p e ra tiv e ” c o u ld b e in te rp re te d a s re fe rrin g to so m e th in g

o th e r th a n th e c o n te n ts o f th e p o lic e in te rv ie w, a n d t h e p ro se c u to r sa id “ No ,”

th a t wo u ld n o t be a “ fa ir in te rp re ta tio n .” Th e p ro se c uto r a lso te stifie d th a t sh e

fo u n d it su rp ris i n g th a t M a tth e ws v io la te d th e c o u rt’s ru lin g o n th e m o tio n in

lim in e

, “c o n sid e rin g th e fa c t th a t in th is c o u rtro o m y o u a n d I h a v e h a d th a t sa m e

m o tio n a n d th a t’s n e v e r o c c u rre d.” Th e p ro se c u to r a d d e d th a t th e S ta te h a d n o

re a so n to d e la y th e tria l b e c a u se sh e h a d su c c e e de d in p e rsu a d in g th e tria l c o urt

to e x c lu d e a

d e fe n se e xp e rt w itn e ss; a ll th e S ta te ’s witn e sse s we re p re se n t a n d

re a d y to te stify ; a n d “ a t th a t p o in t o u r d e c isio n n o t t o p la y th a t e ig h t-h o u r

in te rv ie w h a d b e e n re v e a le d to th e De fe n se in wh a t we th o u g h t wa s a m o tio n in

lim in e th a t p e rh a

p s th e y w e re n o t e x p e c tin g

. S o

, n o

, in fa c t, we d id n o t wa n t th e

m i s t r i al a n d n o n e o f ou r c o n d u c t c a u se d it.” Th e p ro se c u to r sa id th a t

Ma tth e ws’s sta te m e n t to th e ju ry th a t Ap p e lla n t “ h a d be e n c o o p e ra tiv e with th e

p o lic e ha m stru n g o ur e ffo rts to p ro c e e d ” a n d th a t a n in str u c tio n to d isre g a rd

Ma tth e ws’s sta te m e n t wo u ld b e in su ffic ie nt to c u re th e h a rm

, b e c a u se th e ju ry

wo u ld still w o n d e r wh y

, in i t s c a s e- i n -c h ie f, th e S ta te d id n o t p ro d u c e th e

in te rv ie w in wh ic h Ap p e lla n t h a d a lle g e d lyc o o p e ra te d with th e p o lic e

.

At th e e n d o f th e h e a

rin g , th e tria l c o u rt sa id :

9[Th e ju ry ] h e a rd th a t a sta te m e n t e x iste d

. A n d t h e r e ’s a re fe re n c e

to wh a t h a

p p e n e d in th e sta te m e n t b y s a yi n g t h a t [Ap p e lla n t wa s]

c o o p e ra tiv e

. I a g re e w ith th e S ta te ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f th a t, to o

, th a t

th a t is a re fe re nc e to th e c on te n ts.

. . . I th in k th a t v i o l at e s th e

M o t i o n in L im in e

, th e e x c lu sio n

, to sta rt d an c in g a ro u n d it a n d

sa y in g

, I k n o w I c a n’t g o in to it, b ut I’m g o in g to te ll th e ju ry th a t

a sta te m e n t wa s g iv e n

. I’m go in g to te ll t h e j u r y t h a t sh e wa s

c o o p e ra tiv e

.

Th e c o u rt fo u n d th a t “ [t] h e re h a s b e e n no e v id e n c e th a t a d e l a y b e n e fits th e

S ta te

. Th e re h a s b e e n no e v id e n c e th a t th e S ta te d i d a n y th in g to in d u c e a

m istria l. In fa c t, it wa s d o n e b y D e f e n se c o un se l.” Th e c o u rt a lso e x p la in e d

wh y it re je c te d Ap p e lla n t’s p ro p o se d a lte rn a tiv e to a m istria l:

I d id n ’t k n o w h o w to te ll th e ju ry

, g iv e th e m a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n

to d isre g a rd th e De fe n se c o u n se l’s sta te me n t th a t h is c lie n t h a d

m a d e a sta te m e n t to th e p o lic e in wh ic h sh e h a d b e e n v e ry

c o o p e ra tiv e b e c a

u se th e n th e S ta te wa s p u t in a p o sitio n o f m a yb e

try in g to e x p la in if th e re wa s a sta te m e nt, wh y th e ju ry d o e sn ’t g e t

to h e a r it. A n d I ju st fe lt lik e

, a s I sa id th a t d a y

, th a t wa s a b e ll th a t

c o u ld n o t b e u n ru ng

.

Th e n e x t d a y

, Ju n e 6

, 2 0 1 3

, th e c o u rt e n te re d a n o rd e r strik in g Ap p e lla n t’s

sp e e dy tria l d e m a nd ba se d o n its fin d in gs t h a t M a t th e ws v io la te d th e c o u rt’s

ru lin g o n th e m otio n in lim in e a n d th a t th e m istria l wa s c a u se d b y d e fe nse

c o u n se l’s c o n d u c t. Also o n Ju n e 6, th e c ou rt e nte re d an o rd e r d e n y in g

Ap p e lla n t’s p le a

in b a r, wh ic h in c lu d e d a

fin d in g th a t

1 0th e p le a o f d o ub le je o p a rd y is friv o lo u s, in th a t th e m istria l wa s n o t

in d u c e d b y t h e S t a t e bu t ra th e r b y d e fe n se c o u n se l,

. . . d e fe n se

c o u n se l a c k n o wle d g e s th a t th e [c o u rt] h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n in

d e c id in g w h e th e r to gra n t a m istria l, a n d [Ap pe ll a n t] h a s fa ile d to

p ro d u c e a n y c re d ib le e v id e n c e t ha t th e S ta te d e sire d a m istria l o r

wo u ld b e n e fit fro m

th e g ra n tin g o f sa m e

.

Ap p e lla n t file d a tim e ly n o tic e of a pp e a l fro m th e o rd e r d e n y in g h e r p le a

in b a r, wh ic h is th e a

p p e a l c u rre n tly b e fo re th is Co urt; sh e d id n o t m o v e fo r th is

Co u rt to sta y h e r re tria l p e n d in g o u r d e c isio n on th is a p p e a l. A p p e lla n t wa s th e n

re trie d, a n d o n Ju n e 2 1

, 2 0 1 3

, th e ju ry fo u n d h e r g uilty o f th e m a lic e m u rd e r o f

h e r m o th e r a n d o th e r c rim e s. S h e h a s n o t y e t b e e n se n te nc e d

. 2

2 The p rosecutor and t h e t r i a l c ourt appear to have understood DeSouz a v

. State, 285 Ga.

App. 201 (645 SE2d 684) (2007), to hold that where a defendant appeals the denial of a plea in bar

and the trial c ourt finds the plea to be frivolous, the trial may proceed, but the defendant may not be

sentenced until the plea in bar appeal has been decided and the r emittitur from that appeal is filed

in the trial court. That reading of DeSouz a’s holding is incorrect. The Court of A ppeals held that

the trial court did not err in proceeding with the defendant’s retrial d uring the pendency o f his appeal

from the denial of a plea in bar that w as found to be frivolous. See id. at 202-203. The court noted

in passing that the d efendant’s “sentence was not imposed until after the remittit u r [ from the plea

appeal] was filed below,” id. at 203, but the court did not hold that the supersedeas from the notice

of appeal precluded the trial court from sentencing the defendant. Where a defendant files a notice

of appeal challeng ing the denial o f a plea in b a r that the trial court finds to be f rivolous or dilatory

, the defendant may be retried, convicted, and sentenc e d despite the pendency of the defendant’s

appeal. See Stri c k l an d v. State, 258 Ga. 7 64, 766 n .1 (373 SE2d 736) (1988) (sug g esting that a

merits appeal from a conviction a n d sentence and a

n appeal from the earlier denial o f a plea in bar

could be decided tog ether if the Gener a l A s sembly required an application to appeal the denial of

a plea in b a

r, which could not happen if the plea in b ar appeal prevented the trial court from entering

an a ppealable f

inal judg ment sentencing the defendant). See a lso B aker v. State, 2 6 3 Ga. App. 462,

463-466 (588 SE2d 288) (2003) ( deciding a challeng e to the denial of a plea in bar that the trial court

found to be frivolous in an appeal from the defendant’s convictions and sentence).

1 12

. Ap pe lla n t c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c ou rt e rre d in d e n y in g h e r p le a in

b a r fo r two re a so n s. F irst, sh e a rg u e s th a t h e r de fe nse c o u n se l d id no t v io la te th e

c o u rt’s p re tria l ru lin g on th e S ta te ’s m o tio n in lim in e d u r i n g h i s o p e n in g

sta te m e n t. S e c o n d

, sh e a rg u e s th a t g iv in g th e ju ry a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n wo u ld

h a v e b e e n su ffic ie n t to re m o v e a n y h a r m. As e x p la in e d b e lo w

, th e tria l c o urt

d id n o t a b use its d isc re tio n in g ra ntin g a m istria l, so th e c o u rt p ro p e rly d e n ie d

Ap p e lla n t’s p le a

in b a r b a se d o n d o u b le je o p a rd y

.

(a ) Th e Do u b le Je o p a rd y Cla u se o f th e Fifth Am e n d m e nt, wh ic h

a p p lie s to th e sta te s th ro u g h th e F o u rte e n th Am e n d m e nt, sa y s th a t “ [n ] o p e rso n

sh a ll be

. . . su b

je c t fo r t h e s ame o f

f e n c e to b e twic e p u t in je o p a rd y o f life o r

lim b

. . . .” U.S

. Co n s t

. a m e n d

. V. On c e a ju ry is im p a n e le d a n d swo rn

,

je o p ard y a tta c h e s, a

n d th e d e fe n da n t n o rm a lly h a s a r i g h t to h a v e he r tria l

c o m p le te d b y th a t p a

rtic u la r trib u n a l. Se e P le a s v

. S ta te

, 2 6 8 Ga

. 8 8 9

, 89 0 (4 9 5

S E2 d 4 ) (1 9 9 8 ); F u g itt v

. S t a t e

, 2 5 3 G a

. 3 1 1

, 3 1 5 (3 1 9 S E2 d 8 2 9 ) (1 9 8 4 ).

Ho we ve r, th is rig h t “ ‘is n o t p a ra m o u n t to th e sta te ’s e qu a l rig h t to a fa ir tria l.’”

Tub b s v

. S ta te

, 2 7 6 Ga

. 7 5 1

, 7 5 4 (5 8 3 S E2 d 8 5 3 ) (2 0 0 3) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). A

d e fe n d a n t’s “ v a lu e d rig h t to h a v e th e tria l c o n c lu de d b y a p a rtic u la r trib u n a l is

so m e tim e s su b o rd in a te to th e p u b lic in te re st in a ffo rd in g th e p ro se c u to r o n e fu ll

1 2a n d fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to p re se n t h is e v id e nc e to a n im pa rtia l ju ry .” Ariz o n a v

.

Wa sh in g to n

, 4 3 4 U .S

. 49 7, 5 0 5 (9 8 S Ct 8 2 4

, 54 LE2 d 7 1 7 ) (1 9 7 8 ).

Ac c o rd in g ly

, “ in c a se s in wh ic h a m istria l h a s b e e n de c la re d p rio r to v e rd ic t, th e

c o n c lu sio n th a t je o p a rd y h a s a tta c h e d b e g in s, ra th e r th an e n d s, th e in q u iry a s to

w h e t h e r th e Do u b le Je o p a rd y Cla u se b a rs re tria l.” Illin o is v

. S om e rv ille

, 4 1 0

U.S . 4 5 8, 4 6 7 (9 3 S Ct 1 0 6 6 , 3 5 LE2 d 4 2 5 ) (1 97 3 ). 3

Tria l c o u rts m a y de c la re a m istria l o v e r th e d e fe n d a n t’s o b je c tio n

, with o u t

b a rrin g re tria l, “ ‘wh e n e v e r, in th e ir o pin io n

, ta kin g a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s in to

c o n sid e ra tio n

, th e re is a m a n ife st n e c e ssity ’ fo r d o in g so .” Re n ic o v

. Le tt, 5 5 9

U.S

. 7 6 6

, 7 7 3-7 7 4 (1 30 S Ct 1 8 5 5, 17 6 LE2 d 6 7 8 ) (2 01 0) (q u o tin g Un ite d S ta te s

v

. P e r e z

, 2 2 U.S

. (9 Wh e a t.) 5 7 9

, 5 8 0 (6 LE 1 6 5 ) (1 82 4 )). Th e U n ite d S ta te s

S u p re m e Co u rt h a s c la rifie d th a t “ th e ‘m an ife st n e c e ssity ’ sta n d a rd [e sta b lish e d

in P e re z ] ‘c a n n o t b e in te rp re te d lite ra lly ,’ an d th a t a m istria l is a p pro p ria te wh e n

th e re is a ‘“ h ig h d e g re e ” ’ o f n e c e ssity .” Re n ic o

, 5 5 9 U.S

. a t 7 7 4 (c ita tio n s

o m itte d ).

3 The double jeopardy provision o f the G eorg ia Constitution makes ex plicit that a trial

ending in a mistrial d oes not alway s bar retrial. See Ga. Const. of 1983, A rt. I

, Sec. I

, Par. XVI I I

(“No person shall b e put in jeopardy o f l i f e o r l i b erty more than once for the same offense ex cept

when a new trial has been g r a n ted after conviction or in case of mistrial.”).

1 3Th e d e c i s io n s o f th is Co u rt a n d th e U .S

. S u p re m e Co u rt e m p ha siz e th a t

wh e th e r th e re q u ire d d e g re e o f n e c e ss i t y fo r a m istria l h a s b e e n sh o wn is a

m a tte r b e st ju dg e d b y th e tria l c o u rt. S e e

, e .g

., T u b bs, 2 7 6 Ga

. a t 7 5 4 -7 55 (“ [A]

a tria l c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t a b o u t wh e th e r th e re w a s m a n ife st n e c e ssity to g ra n t a

m istria l is e n title d to g re a t d e fe re n c e .’” (c ita tio n om itte d )); Re nic o

, 5 59 U.S

. a t

7 7 4 (“ Th e d e c isio n wh e th e r to g ra n t a m istria l is re s e r v e d t o th e ‘b ro a d

d isc r e t i o n ’ o f th e tria l ju d g e

, a p o in t th a t ‘h a s be e n c o n siste n tly re ite ra te d in

d e c isio n s o f th is Co u rt.’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )). “ Th e p ro p rie ty o f de c la rin g a

m istria l in th e v a ry in g a n d o fte n u n iq u e situ a tio n s a risin g du rin g th e c ou rse o f

a c rim in a l tria l” c a nn ot b e de te rm in e d b y th e a p p lic a tio n of a n y me ch a n i c a l

fo rm u la

. S o m e rv ille

, 41 0 U.S

. a t 4 6 2

. M o re o v e r, “c o m p e ll i n g i n stitu tio n a l

c o n sid e ra t io ns” m ilita te in fa v o r of a p p e lla te de fe re n c e to th e tria l ju d g e ’s

e v a lu a tio n o f th e im

pa c t o f im p ro p e r c o n d u c t o n th e ju ry

. Wa sh in g to n

, 4 3 4 U.S

.

a t 5 1 3 . Th e tria l ju dg e

h a s se e n a n d h e a rd th e ju ro rs d u rin g th e ir v o ir d ire e x a m in a tio n

. H e

is th e ju d g e m o st fa m ilia r with th e e v id e nc e a n d th e b a c k g ro u n d o f

th e c a se o n tria l. He h a s l i s te n e d to th e to n e o f th e a rg u m e n t a s it

wa s d e liv e re d a n d h a s o b se rv e d th e a pp are n t re a c tio n o f th e ju ro rs.

In sh o rt, he is fa r m o re “ c o n v e rsa n t with th e fa c to rs re le va n t to th e

d e te rm in a tio n ” th a n a n y re v ie win g c o u rt c a n p ossib ly b e

.

1 4Id

. a t 5 1 3-5 1 4 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). F u rth e rm o re

, “ a c rim in a l tria l is, e v e n in th e

b e st o f c irc u m sta n c e s, a c o m p lic a te d a ffa ir to m an a g e

, ” Un ite d Sta te s v

. Jo rn

,

4 0 0 U.S

. 4 7 0, 47 9 (9 1 S Ct 5 4 7

, 2 7 L E 2 d 5 4 3 ) (1 97 1) (p lu ra lity o pin io n ), a n d

u n le ss

d e fe n se c o u n se l a re to b e a llo we d an u n fa ir a d v a n ta g e

, th e tria l

ju d g e m u st h a v e th e po we r to d e c la re a m istria l in a p p ro p ria te c a se s.

T h e in te re st in o rd e rly

, im p a rtia l p ro c e du re wo u ld b e im p a ire d if h e

we re d e te rre d fro m e x e rc isin g th a t p o we r by a c o n c e rn th a t a n y tim e

a re v ie win g c o u rt d isa g re e d with h is a sse ssm e n t o f th e tria l situ a tio n

a re tria l wo u ld a

u to m a tic a lly b e b a rre d.

Wa sh in g to n , 4 34 U.S . a t 5 1 3

.

Th is is n o t t o s a y

, h o we v e r, th a t a c o u rt m u st c o n c lu d e th a t d e fe nse

c o u n se l u nsc ru p u lo u sly so u g h t a n “u n fa ir a d va n ta g e ” in o rd e r to d e c la re a

m istria l with o u t b a rrin g re tria l.

Wh e re in a d m issib le e v id e n c e is in tro d u c e d o r o th e rwise c o m e s to

th e a tte ntio n of th e ju ry

, a nd c u ra tiv e in stru c t i o n s c a n n o t fre e th e

ju ry ’s m in d o f p re

ju d ic e

, it is e rro r n ot to d e c la re a m istria l. Th is is

tru e e v e n wh e re th e a c tio n wh ic h bro u g h t th e in a d m issib le e v id e n c e

to th e ju ry ’s a tte n tio n w a s u n in te n tio n a l, in n o c e nt, or un a ttrib u ta b le

to a n y p a rty

, a s th a t fa c t d o e s n o t m a k e th e e v id en c e l e ss

in a d m issib le o r le ss p re

ju d ic ia l.

Va rn e r v

. Sta te

, 2 8 5 Ga

. 3 3 4

, 3 3 5 (6 76 SE2 d 2 0 9 ) (2 0 0 9) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

Th u s, a mi s t r i a l m a y b e re q u ire d n o t a s a sa n c tio n fo r m isc o n d u c t, b u t sim p ly

1 5b e c a

u se e v id e n c e w a s im

pro p e r l y p u t b e fo re th e ju ry th a t c o u ld in flu e n c e its

d e c isio n

.

Th e tria l ju d g e “ is n o t re q u ire d t o m a k e e x p lic it fin d in gs of ‘“ m a n ife st

n e c e ssity ” ’ n o r to ‘a rtic u la te o n th e re c o rd a ll th e fa c to rs wh ic h i n f o rm e d th e

d e lib e ra te e x e rc ise o f h is d isc re tio n

. ’” Re n ic o

, 5 59 U.S

. a t 7 7 5 (c ita tio n

o m itte d ). Ho we v e r, th e re c o rd m u st sh o w th a t th e tria l c o u rt a c tu a lly e x e rc ise d

its d isc re tio n

. S e e W a sh in g to n

, 4 3 4 U .S

. a t 5 1 4 -5 1 6

. S e e a lso Jo rn , 4 0 0 U.S

.

a t 4 85

, 4 8 7 (p lu ra lity o p i n io n ) (d isc u ssin g th e Co u rt’s “ c o n sc io u s re fu sa l” to

c h a n n e l tria l c o u rts’ e x e rc ise o f th e ir b ro a d d isc re tio n to g ra n t m istria ls with o u t

b a rrin g re tria l, b u t e m

p h a siz in g th a t “ th a t d isc re tio n m u st still b e e x e rc is e d ” )

.

F o r th is re a so n

, w e ha v e in stru c te d tria l c o u rts to “ g iv e c are fu l, de lib e ra te

, a n d

stu dio u s c o n sid e ra tio n to wh e th e r th e c irc um sta n c e s d e m an d a m istria l, with a

k e e n e y e to wa rd o th e r, le ss d ra stic

, a lte rn a tiv e s, c a llin g fo r a re c e ss if n e c e ssa ry

a n d fe a sib le to gu a rd a g a in st h a sty m ista k e s.” S m ith v

. S ta te

, 2 6 3 Ga

. 7 8 2

, 7 8 3

(4 3 9 S E2 d 4 8 3 ) (1 9 9 4 ). Wh e re it is c le a r fro m th e r e c o r d t h a t t h e tria l c o urt

a c tu a lly e x e rc ise d its disc re t i o n in d e c id in g to g ra n t a m istria l, th e Do u b le

Je o p a rd y C la u se g e n er a lly will n o t b a r re tria l. S e e Je n k in s v

. S ta te

, 2 9 4 Ga

.

5 0 6

, 5 0 9 (7 5 5 S E2 d 1 3 8 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

1 6(b ) He re

, w h e n d e fe n se c o u n se l to ld th e ju ry th a t Ap p e lla n t wa s

“ v er y c o o p e ra tiv e with th e p olic e ” d u rin g a n h o u rs-lo n g in te rv ie w, th e

p ro se c u t o r p r o mp tly o b

je c te d o n th e g ro u nd th a t th is sta te m e n t re fe re n c e d

e v id e n c e th a t wa s su b

je c t to a m otio n in lim in e

, a n d th e tria l c o u rt he ld a b e n c h

c o n fe re n c e to d isc u ss th e m a tte r. Wh e n th e p ro se c u to r re q u e ste d a m istria l, th e

c o u rt e xc u se d th e ju ry a n d he a rd fu rth e r a rg um e n ts fro m d e fe n se c o un se l a n d th e

p ro se c u to r c o n c e rn in g wh e th e r th e c o u rt’s p re tria l ru lin g h a d be e n v io la te d a n d

,

if so

, wh e th e r a n a lte rn a tiv e sh o rt o f a m istria l wo u ld b e su ffic ie n t to c u re th e

h a rm so th a t th e tria l c ou ld p ro c e e d

. In k e e p in g w ith th is Co u rt’s d i r e c t i o n in

S m ith

, th e tria l c o u rt th e n c a lle d a re c e ss to a llo w d e lib e ra te c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e

S ta te ’s m istria l re q u e st a n d Ma tth e ws’s p ro p ose d a lte rn a tiv e

, a nd th e c o u rt th e n

h e a rd a d d itio n a l a rg u m e n t fro m b o th sid e s a fte r re ta k in g th e b e n c h. O n ly th e n

d id th e tria l c ou rt g ra nt th e m istria l.

Th u s, th e re c o rd d e m on stra te s th a t in d e c id in g wh e th e r to g ra n t a m istria l,

th e tria l c o u rt c a

re fu lly a n d th o u g h tfu lly w e ig h e d th e d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to h a v e

h e r tria l c o m

p le te d a g a in st th e p u b lic in te re st in a ffo rd in g th e p ro se c u tio n o n e

fu ll a n d fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to p re se nt its e v id e n c e to a n im p a rtia l ju ry

. Mo re o ve r,

th e se m a tte rs w e re fu rth e r a rg u e d

, a n d th e c o u rt’s re a so n in g fu rth e r e la bo ra te d

,

1 7in th e su b se q u e n t h e a rin g a n d o rd e rs o n Ap p e lla nt’s sta tu to r y sp e e d y tria l

d e m a n d a n d p le a in ba r. Ac c o rd in g ly

, th e q u e stio n b e fo re u s is n o t wh e th e r th e

tria l c o u rt e x e rc ise d its d isc r e t i o n to g ra n t a m istria l with c are an d fu ll

d e lib e ra tio n o r wh e th e r, with th e b e n e fit o f h in d sig ht, we wo uld sa y th a t a

m istria l wa s n e c e ssa ry

. Ou r ta sk is o n ly to d e c id e wh e th e r th e tria l c o u rt a b u se d

its b ro a d d isc re tio n

.

(c ) Ap pe lla n t a rg u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in c o nc lu d in g th a t

Ma tth e ws v io la te d th e c o u rt’s ru lin g o n th e S ta te ’s m otio n in limi n e, b e c a use

th a t ru lin g d id n o t b a

r re fe re n c e to th e e x iste n c e o f h e r p olic e in te rv ie w a s

o p p ose d to its sp e c ific c o n te n ts. Th e d a y b e fo re Ma tth e w s m a de h i s o p e n i n g

sta te m e n t, th e c o u rt he ld a h e a rin g o n th e S ta te ’s m o tio n in lim in e

, d u rin g wh ic h

th e p ro se c u to r d isc lo se d fo r th e first tim e th a t th e S ta te d id n ot in te n d to a d m it

A p p e l l a n t ’s v id e o ta

p e d p o lic e in te rv ie w in its c a se -in -c h ie f. Ma tt h e w s i n d i c at e d

th a t he th o u g h t th a t so m e p o rtio n s o f th e in te rv ie w we re fa v o ra b le to h is c lie n t

a n d th a t h e m ig h t se e k to in tro d u c e a re d a c te d v e rsio n o f th e v id e ota p e a s p a rt

o f th e d e fe n se c a se

. Th e p ro se c u to r wa s a d a m a n t th a t th e S ta te wo u ld o b je c t to

a n y a tte m p t to in tro du c e th e v id e o ta p e u ntil a fte r Ap p e lla nt te stifie d

. Ma tth e w s

re siste d th e S ta te ’s m o tio n

, se e k in g to p re se rv e h is a b ility to in tro d uc e p o rtio n s

1 8o f th e v id e o ta p e a nd to re fe r to th e in te rv ie w in h is o pe n in g sta te m e n t a n d in

q u e stio n in g witn e sse s. Th e c ou r t r u l e d a g a in st Ma tth e ws b y g ra n tin g th e m o tio n

in lim in e

. S e e S im s v

. Sta te

, 2 5 1 G a

. 8 7 7

, 8 7 9 (3 1 1 S E2 d 1 6 1 ) (1 9 8 4) (“ [T] h e

tria l c o u rt h a s a so u n d d isc re tio n to c o n tro l th e c o n te n t o f th e o p e n in g sta te m e n t

o f e ith e r p a rty

, p a rtic u la rly with re g a rd to m a t t er s o f q ue stio n a b le

a d m issib ility .” ).

Wh e n th e tria l c o u rt’s o ra l ru lin g o n th e m o tio n in lim in e is v ie we d in its

fu ll c on te x t, we c a n n o t sa y th a t th e c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in c o n c lu d in g th a t

its p re tria l d e c isio n w a s u n d e rsto o d b y th e c o u rt a n d b y th e p a rtie s a s p ro h ib itin g

Ma tth e ws fro m m a kin g a n y m e n tio n o f Ap p e lla n t’s p o lic e in te r v i e w in h is

o p e n in g sta te m e n t. S e e S a y e v

. P ro v id e nt Life & Ac c id e n t I n s

. C o

. , 3 1 1 Ga

.

Ap p

. 7 4

, 7 7 (7 1 4 S E2 d 6 1 4) (2 0 1 1 ) (h o ld in g th a t tria l c o u rts h a v e d isc re tio n to

d e c id e wh e th e r litig a tio n c o n d u c t v io la te s a ru lin g o n a m o tio n in lim in e ). On e

o f th e p rim a ry re a so n s th a t m otio n s in lim in e a re file d is “ to pre ve n t th e m e n tio n

b y a n y o n e

, d u rin g th e tria l, o f a c e rta in ite m o f e v id e n c e o r a re a o f in q u iry u n til

its a d m issib ility c a

n b e d e te rm in e d d urin g th e c o u rse o f th e tria l ou tsid e th e

p re se nc e o f th e ju ry .” S ta t e v

. J o h n s t o n

, 2 4 9 Ga

. 41 3

, 4 15 (2 91 S E2 d 5 4 3 )

(1 9 8 2 ) (e m

p h a sis d e le te d ). Th u s, a m o tio n in lim in e se rv e s a s a wa rn in g sh o t

1 9th a t a pa rtic u la r ite m or a re a of e vid e n c e will lik e ly d ra w o b je c tio n a n d m a y b e

d e e m e d in a d m issib le

. A n d a t th e h e a rin g o n th e S ta te ’s m o tio n

, th e p ro se c u to r

m a d e it c le a r th a t th e S ta te d id n o t in te n d to in tro d u c e th e p o lic e in te rv ie w a n d

so u g h t to p re v e n t a n y re fe re n c e to th e in te rv ie w un le ss a n d u ntil Ap p e lla n t to o k

th e witn e ss sta n d . Th a t o b v io u sly wo u ld n o t o c c u r b e fo re o p e n in g sta te m e n ts

a n d m ig h t n ot h a

p p e n e ve n if d e fe n se c o u n se l p ro m ise d th a t h is c lie nt wo u ld

te stify

, sin c e th e d e c isio n wh e th e r to te stify is u ltim a te ly fo r th e d e fe n d a n t to

m a k e

, n o t h e r la wy e r. S e e S p e n c e r v

. S ta te

, 2 8 7 Ga

. 4 3 4, 4 3 9 (6 9 6 SE2 d 6 1 7 )

(2 0 1 0 ). Th e p ro se c u to r o b v io u sly u n d e rsto o d Ma tth e w s’s sta te m e nt to be a

v io la tio n o f th e c o u rt’s ru lin g

, a s in d ic a te d b y he r p ro m p t o bje c tio n a s we ll a s

h e r la te r te stim on y

. T h e p ro se c u to r a lso in d ic a te d th a t sh e a n d M a tth e ws h a d

e x p e rie n c e with th is sa m e m o tio n in lim in e b e fo re th e sa m e ju d g e in prio r c a se s

a n d Ma tth e ws h a d n o t v io la te d it b e fo re

.

Mo re ov e r, A p p e lla n t c o n c e d e s th a t t h e r u l in g o n th e S ta te ’s m o tio n in

lim in e e x p lic itly p ro h ib ite d a n y re fe re n c e to th e c o n te n ts o f Ap p e lla nt’s p o lic e

in te rv ie w. As th e tria l c o u rt e x p l a i n e d d u rin g th e Ju n e 5 he a rin g, a n d a s th e

p ro se c u to r h a d a rg u e d ju st b e fo re th e m istria l wa s g ra n te d , Ma tth e ws v io la te d

th is p ro hib itio n wh e n h e to ld th e ju ry th a t th e p olic e in te rv ie we d A p p e lla n t fo r

2 0se v e ra l h o u rs a n d th a t sh e w as s u p p o se d ly “ v e ry c o o p e ra tiv e with th e p o lic e ”

d u rin g th e in te rv ie w. 4 Co nsid e rin g th a t th e tria l c o u rt wa s a ble to e v a lu a te th e

to n e

, d e me an o r

, a n d c re d ib ility o f d e fe n se c o u n se l d u rin g th e h e a rin g o n th e

m o tio n in lim in e

, wh e n h e m a d e th e d isp ute d sta te m e nt d u rin g h is o p e n in g

, a n d

wh e n he a rg u e d th a t h e d id n o t k n o win g ly v io la te th e p re tria l ru lin g

– so m e th in g

we c a n n o t d o fro m th e c o ld re c o rd o n a p p e a l

– we c a n n o t sa y th a t th e tria l c o urt

a b u se d its d isc re tio n in fin d in g th a t its ru lin g wa s v io la te d

.

I n a d d itio n

, e v e n if th e p re tria l ru lin g wa s im p re c ise a nd Ma tth e w s ’ s

v io la tio n o f th e ru lin g wa s n o t th e m ost bla ta n t, th e tria l c o urt c o u ld d e c id e th a t

e v id e n c e th a t w a s u nlik e ly to b e a d m itte d a n d pre ju d ic ia l to th e S ta te ha d b e e n

p la c e d b e fo re th e ju ry du rin g o pe n in g sta te m e n ts. Un d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s,

th e c o urt h a d d isc re tio n to d e c id e th a t it wa s be tte r to sta rt o v e r with a n e w tria l

in ste a d o f wa itin g to se e if th e d isp u te d e v id e n c e c a m e in a fte r d a y s o f te stim o n y

a n d ha v in g to d e c la re a m istria l th e n if th e e vid e n c e wa s n e v e r a d m itt e d

. S e e

Va rn e r, 2 8 5 G a

. a t 3 3 5 (e x p la in i n g t h a t a m istria l m a y b e gra n te d

, with o u t

4 I n its oral r

uling at trial on the State’s mistrial request, the trial court said that “ the jury has

not heard any r eference to the content of what [ Appella n t ] s a i d

, ” b ut the court’s later discussions

indicate that by “content” it was refe r ri n g t h e r e to the specific thing s Appellant said during the

interview.

2 1b a rrin g re tria l, e v e n th o u g h th e a c tio n th a t b ro ug h t th e in a d m issib le e v id e n c e to

th e ju ry ’s a tte n tio n w a s “ u n in te n tio n a l, in n o c e n t, o r u n a ttrib u ta b le to a n y p a rty

,

a s th a t fa c t d o e s n ot m a k e th e e v id e n c e le ss in a d m issib le o r le ss p re ju dic ia l” ).

(d ) A p p e lla n t a lso a rg u e s th a t, e v e n if Ma tth e ws im p ro p e rly

re fe rre d to h e r po lic e in te rv i e w

, t h e tria l c o u rt e rre d in d e te rm in in g th a t a

c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n wo u l d b e in su ffic ie n t to c u re a n y h a rm to th e S ta te

. “ [A]

tria l j u d g e ’ s d e c isio n to d e c la re a m istria l b a se d o n his a sse ssm e nt o f th e

p re ju d ic ia l im

p a c t o f im

pro p e r arg u m e nt is e n t i t l e d to g re a t d e fe re n c e ” o n

a p p e a l, Wa sh in g to n

, 4 3 4 U

. S

. a t 5 1 4

, a n d w e w ill a ffirm th e tria l c o u rt’s

re je c tio n o f p o ssib le a lte rn a tiv e s to a m istria l “ ‘if re a so n a b le ju d g e s c o uld d iffe r

a b o u t th e p ro p e r d isp o sitio n .’” Tu b b s, 2 7 6 Ga . a t 7 5 4 (c ita tio n o m itte d ).

He re , th e tria l ju d g e n o t o n ly h e ard a n d sa w th e way in wh ic h Ma tth e w s

m a d e th e im

p ro p e r c o m m e n ts to th e ju ry

, b u t a lso h a d th e o p po rtu nity to o b se rv e

th e ju ry ’s re a c tio n to th e m

.

An im p ro p e r o p e n i n g sta te m e n t u n q u e stio n a b ly te n d s to fru stra te

th e p u b lic in te re st in h a v in g a ju st ju d g m e n t re a c h e d b y a n im p artia l

trib u n a l. In d e e d

, su c h sta te m e n ts c re a te a risk

, o fte n n o t p re se nt in

t h e i n d iv id u a l ju ro r b ia s situ a tio n

, th a t th e e n tire p a n e l m a y b e

ta in te d. Th e tria l ju d g e

, o f c o u rse

, m a y in stru c t th e ju ry to d isre ga rd

th e im p ro p e r c o m m e n t. In e xtre me c a s e s, he m a y d isc ip lin e

c o u n se l, o r e v e n r e m o v e him fro m th e tria l

. . . . Th o se a c tio n s,

2 2h o we ve r, will no t n e c e ssa rily re m o v e th e risk o f b ia s th a t m ay b e

c re a te d b y im

pro p e r a rg u m e n t.

Wa sh in g to n

, 4 3 4 U.S

. a t 5 1 2 -5 1 3 (f o o t n o t e o m itte d). As n o te d a b o v e

, o n e o f

t h e p r i m a r y p u rp o se s o f a m o tio n in lim in e is to p re v e n t th e o th e r sid e fro m

m a k in g a n y re fe re nc e to c e rta in e v id e n c e u n t i l t h a t e v id e nc e is a c tu a lly

d e te rm in e d to b e a d m iss i b l e a t tria l. As e x pla in e d in Bla c k ’s La w Dic tio n a ry

(1 0 th e d . 2 0 14 ):

Ty p ic a lly

, a p a r t y ma k e s th is m o tio n wh e n it be lie v e s th a t m e re

m e n tio n o f th e e v id e n c e d u rin g tria l wo u ld be h ig h ly p re ju d ic ia l a n d

c o u ld n o t b e re me d i e d b y a n in stru c tio n to d isre g ard

. If, a fte r th e

m o tio n is g ra n te d, th e o p p o sin g p a rty m e n tio n s o r a tte m p ts to o ffe r

th e e v id e n c e in th e ju ry ’s p re se n c e , a m istria l m a y b e o rd e re d

.

He re , a s th e c ou rt e x p la in e d in g ra n tin g th e Sta te ’s re q u e st fo r a m istria l

a n d a g a in la te r in th e h e a rin g o n th e p l e a i n b a r, if A p p e lla n t e le c te d n o t to

te stify a fte r th e S t a t e c o n c lu d e d its c a se -in -c h ie f, th e ju ry wo u ld b e le ft to

wo n de r wh y th e y n e v e r h e a rd th e h o u rs-lo n g in te rv ie w th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l h a d

re fe re nc e d a t th e ou tse t o f th e tria l, d u rin g w h ic h Ap p e lla n t wa s a lle g e d ly “ v e ry

c o o p e ra tiv e with th e po lic e .” Th is sc e n a rio wo uld b e p artic u la rly d a m a g in g to

th e Sta te

, wh ic h h a d th e b u rd e n to p ro v e Ap p e lla n t’s g u ilt to th e ju ry b e y o n d a

re a so na b le d o u bt. It w a s n o t u n re a so n a b le in th is situ a tio n fo r th e tria l c o u rt to

2 3c o n c lu d e th a t it c o u ld no t “u n -rin g th a t b el l” sim p ly b y in stru c tin g th e ju ry to

d isre g a rd d e fe n se c o u n se l’s re fe re n c e

. In de e d , b y e x p la in in g o r im

p ly in g th a t

th e in te rv ie w w a s in a d m issib le

, th e c o u rt c o u ld h a v e ra ise d th e in fe re n c e th a t th e

p o lic e ra th e r th a

n de fe n se c ou n se l h a d d o n e so m e th in g wro n g

– re in fo rc in g th e

th e m e of d e fe n se c o u n se l’s o pe n in g th a t th e p o lic e h a d c o n d u c te d a n im p ro p e r

in v e stig a tio n

.

(e ) F o r th e se re a so n s, th e tria l c o u rt d id no t a b u se its d isc r e t i o n

in g ra n tin g a m ist r ia l, Ap p e lla n t’s rig h t a g a in st d o u b le je op ard y wa s n o t

v io la te d , a

n d th e c o u rt th e re fo re p ro pe rly d e n ie d h e r p le a in b ar.

3

. Ap pe lla n t a lso c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g th a t h e r

d o u ble je o p a rd y p le a w a s friv o lo u s a n d th e re fo re a llo win g h e r re tria l to p ro c e e d

d e sp ite h e r n o tic e o f a

pp e a l fro m th e o rd e r d e n y i n g h e r p le a

. Citin g R ie lli v

.

Oliv e r, 17 0 G a

. Ap p

. 69 9, 7 0 0 (3 1 8 S E2 d 1 7 3) (1 9 8 4 ), w h ic h in tu rn “ a d o p t[e d ]

th e ra tio n a le of [Un ite d S ta te s v

. Du n b a r, 6 1 1 F 2 d 9 8 5 (5 th Cir. 1 9 8 0 ) (e n

b a n c )] ,” th is Co u rt ha s h e ld th a t a tria l c o u rt re ta in s ju risd ic tio n to try a

d e fe n d a n t, d e sp ite h e r filin g o f a no tic e o f a p pe a l fro m th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r

d isc h a rg e a n d a c q u itta l o n d ou b le je op ard y g ro u n ds, w h e re th e tria l c o u rt m a ke s

2 4a writte n fin d in g th a t th e m o tio n wa s friv olo u s a n d d ila to ry

. S e e S tric kla n d

, 2 5 8

Ga . a t 7 6 6

.

Ap p e lla n t d id n o t file a m o tio n in th is Co u rt to sta y h e r re tria l p e n d in g o u r

d e c isio n in th is a

p p e a l o f th e de n ia l of h e r p le a in b a r b a se d o n d ou ble je o p a rd y

.

S e e Du n b a

r, 6 1 1 F 2 d a t 9 8 9 (e x p la in in g th a t a p p e lla te c o u rts a re “ e m

p o we re d

to p ro te c t th e d e fe nd a

n t’s d o u b le je o p ard y rig h ts b y sta y in g p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w

p e n d in g a

pp e a l o r b y issu in g a writ o f m a n da m u s or pro h ib itio n ” (c ita tio n

o mi t t e d ) )

. S e e a lso P ra th e r v

. Sta te

, 3 0 3 Ga

. Ap p

. 3 7 4

, 37 6 (6 9 3 S E2 d 5 4 6 )

(2 0 1 0 ) (n o tin g, in th e d e fe n da n t’s a p pe a l fro m th e d e n ia l o f h is p le a in b a r, th a t

th e Co u rt o f Ap pe a ls g ra n te d h is e m e rg e n c y m o tio n to sta y h is re tria l p e n d in g

th e o u tc o m e o f th e a

p p e a l); De S o u z a

, 2 8 5 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 2 0 2 (n o tin g

, in th e

d e fe n d a n t’s a

p p e a l f ro m h is c o n v ic tio n s a fte r re tria l fo llo win g a m istria l, th a t th e

Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls c o n sid e re d a n d d e n ie d h is e m e rg e nc y m o tio n to sta y h is re tria l

p e n d in g th e o u tc o m e o f h is p l e a i n b a r a p p e a l). An d a s e x p la in e d b y th e

Ele v e n th Circ u it, u n d e r th e p ro c e d u re se t fo rth in Du n b a r:

If th e [tria l] c o u rt m a k e s writte n fin din g s th a t a d ou ble je o p a rd y

c la im is friv o lo u s o r d ila to ry

, th e n th e [n o tic e of] a p p e a l d o e s n o t

d iv e st th e [tria l] c o u rt o f ju risd ic tio n , th u s p e rm ittin g th e re tria l to

p ro c e e d

. Th e d o u b le je o pa rd y c la im is pro p e r l y h e a rd o n a pp e a l

fro m th e d e fe n d a n t’s c o n v ic tio n o n re tria l. If th e a p p e lla te c o u rt

2 5re

je c ts th e d o u b le je o p a rd y c la im o n th e m e rits, th e ju risd ic tio n o f

th e [tria l] c o u r t w i t h r e sp e c t to th e re tria l is a ffirm e d

, with o u t th e

n e c e ssity o f e xa m in in g w h e t h e r o r n o t th e d o u b le je o p a rd y c la im

wa s in fa c t friv o lo u s. Th is pro c e d u re a d e q ua te ly pro te c ts

d e fe n da n t’s d ou ble je o p a rd y in te re st in n o t ru nn in g th e g a un tle t o f

a se c o nd tria l b e c a

u se th e d e fe n d a n t m a y se e k a n a p p e lla te sta y o f

th e re tria l in c o n n e c tio n with th e in te rlo c u to ry a p p e a l . . . .

Un ite d S ta te s v

. F a rm e r, 9 2 3 F 2 d 1 5 5 7 , 1 5 6 5 (1 1 th Cir. 1 9 9 1 ) (c itin g D u n ba r,

6 1 1 F 2 d a t 9 8 9 ).

Vie we d in a n o th e r wa y

, if a d e fe n d an t fa ils to o b ta in a n a p pe lla te sta y o f

a tria l c o u rt’s ru lin g th a t h e r d o u b le je o p a rd y c la im is friv o lo u s, a n d sh e is th e n

re trie d a n d c o n v ic te d

, t h e o n ly re a l q ue stio n is wh e th e r h e r d ou ble je o p a rd y

c la im is m e rito rio u s. If so

, s h e is e n title d to a re v e rsa l o f h e r c o nv ic tio n ; th e

h a rm o f e n d u rin g th e re tria l c a n n o t b e e ra d ic a te d

. An d if h e r d o u b le je o p a rd y

c la im is n o t m e rito rio us

– e v e n if it wa s n o t e n tire l y friv o lo us

– th e n sh e

p ro p e rly f

ac e d a re tria l; re q u irin g a th ird tria l du e to a n e rro n e o us ru lin g a s to

friv olo u sn e ss wo u ld b e a b i z a rre re m e d y to c u re a d o u b le -je o p a rd y -re la te d e rro r.

In su m

, Ap p e lla n t’s fa ilu re to o b t a i n a n a p p e lla te sta y o f h e r re tria l to

a llo w re vie w, b e fo re th e re tria l o c c u rre d

, o f h e r c h a l l e n ge to th e tria l c o u rt’s

ru lin g th a t h e r d o u b le je op a rd y p le a wa s friv o lo u s re n d e rs th a t issu e irre le v a n t.

2 6We n e e d o n ly d e c id e w h e th e r Ap pe lla n t’s p le a i n b a r wa s p ro p e rly d e n ie d

, a s

we h a v e d o n e in Div isio n 2 a b o v e

.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

2 7