Opinion ID: 4583195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voir Dire and Trial

Text: A grand jury indicted the Teasley brothers for the murder of Riden and the aggravated assault of Jones. The Teasleys were charged with malice murder (Count 1), felony murder (Count 2), two counts of aggravated assault (Counts 3 and 4), possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime (Count 5), and tampering with evidence (Count 6). Christopher Teasley and his two brothers each retained their own counsel and were tried jointly in state court. Juror Donaldson was on the jury venire. After administering the oath to the venire, the court informed the potential jurors of the charges against the Teasleys. The court then asked the venire a series of questions designed to draw out any preconceived opinions potential jurors might have formed about the case: Have any of you for any reason formed or expressed any opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of any of these Defendants? If you have, let that fact be known by raising your hand. 3 USCA11 Case: 19-12224 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 4 of 24 Do any of you have any opinion about the guilt or innocence of any of these Defendants? [H]ave you any prejudice or bias resting on your mind either for or against any of these Defendants? If so, let that fact be known by raising your hand. [I]s your mind perfectly impartial between the State and each one of these Defendants? If your mind is not perfectly impartial, let that fact be known by raising your hand. Juror Donaldson did not respond to any of these questions. Later during voir dire, the state prosecutor asked whether potential jurors could commit to following the judge’s instructions: Can I get a commitment from everyone here that you will follow the directions that the judge gives you and the instructions that the judge gives you on what the law is in this case? Can I get a promise from everyone? Is there anyone that cannot do that? Juror Donaldson did not respond to those questions either. Co-defendant Tyrone Teasley’s attorney then conducted his examination of the panel. He began by asking a series of specific background questions, including whether any potential jurors owned guns. Juror Donaldson responded affirmatively, stating that he owned “shotguns, rifles, [and] pistols” that he used for “protection and sport.” Counsel concluded by asking the potential jurors whether they could try the case impartially: [I]s there anything about either the nature of the charges or anything else that you’ve thought of since you’ve been sitting here so far that leads you to believe that you wouldn’t be a fair and impartial juror in this case . . . ? 4 USCA11 Case: 19-12224 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 5 of 24 Juror Donaldson did not respond to the question. Next, Co-defendant Emory Teasley’s attorney conducted her examination. At the beginning of her voir dire, she asked the panel whether anyone was prejudiced against the defendants: Is there anyone here who feels that Mr. Teasley or any of these gentlemen are guilty because they’re sitting at the defense table? Juror Donaldson did not respond. Counsel for co-defendant continued her examination and eventually asked the panel: Is there anybody here who feels that in the case – in a murder trial where it’s alleged was a shooting, is there anyone here who feels that you can’t be fair and impartial in this case? Is that the type of a case that you just couldn’t be fair on? The transcript indicates that Juror Donaldson raised his hand. There were no followup questions. Later, the prosecutor and defense counsel questioned individual jurors, including Juror Donaldson. The state prosecutor asked Juror Donaldson about a response in which he had indicated that a family member had been charged with a crime. After Juror Donaldson said the issue would not affect his ability to be fair, the prosecutor asked him no further questions. No member of the defense team followed up with Juror Donaldson. Defense counsel did not move to excuse him for cause or use a peremptory strike to remove him, and he was seated on the jury. 5 USCA11 Case: 19-12224 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 6 of 24 After the jury was seated, the trial court administered the “final oath” to the jurors. The oath required the jurors to promise to “well and truly” try the case and render a verdict based on the evidence: You shall well and truly try the issue formed upon this bill of indictment (or accusation) between the State of Georgia and (name of accused), who is charged with (here state the crime or offense), and a true verdict give according to the evidence. So help you God. Ga. Code Ann. § 15-12-139. After a multi-day trial, the jury found Teasley and his two brothers guilty on all counts.