Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Other Jurors

Text: ¶ 39. Russell states that juror Dorothy Fulwood neglected to inform the court during voir dire that our neighbor's daughter got shot dead about thirteen years ago. They said it was an accident, but nobody is sure. This is taken from an unsworn statement, and even if sworn, the statement is not particularly relevant. ¶ 40. Russell states that Herbert Hargett should have revealed his knowledge about the case (he had probably read something in the newspapers about the case beforehand) and the fact that, at some unknown time in the past, when he was teaching, he would take a class of kids up there [Parchman] for a tour. This is also taken from an unsworn statement and gives no reason to question the fairness of the jury selection process at issue.
¶ 41. Once again quoting from Herbert Hargett's unsworn statement, the bailiffs were very helpful answering procedural questions that we had. Russell takes this to mean that the bailiffs answered questions relating to the case. Without further detail as to what a procedural question is, there is no error here.

¶ 42. Russell cites an unsworn statement of juror Sarah Powell, dated May 22, 1997, which states that the deputies who drove us would ask us how we were thinking, which way we were leaning, when we were driving around. The statement does not say whether anyone on the jury ever answered such questions. ¶ 43. Russell also cites the unsworn statement of juror Glenn Ray, who stated that a bailiff or somebody told us who the victim's family were in the courthouse. These allegations do not rise to the level of tainting the jury.
¶ 44. Russell once again cites only the unsworn statement of Sarah Powell. This is insufficient evidence to support such an allegation.
¶ 45. Russell next argues that the jury improperly used the Bibles that were in their hotel rooms to help them make a decision. Russell once again cites the unsworn statement of Sarah Powell and cites Jones v. Kemp, 706 F.Supp. 1534 (N.D.Ga. 1989), and State v. Harrington, 627 S.W.2d 345 (Tenn.1981). A review of these cases shows that in each case a Bible was actually consulted during deliberations or Bible verses were read to the jury during deliberations. The situation in Russell's case is distinguishable.
¶ 46. Russell finally argues that Sarah Powell did not reveal certain important facts during voir dire. Sarah Powell's statement, dated 1997, provides that my son is a district attorney, this is his second year. He was at law school at Ole Miss. He had practiced under Judge Davis. If this is so, he would have begun his term in 1995 or 1996. Powell sat on the sentencing jury in 1993, so she could not have revealed it then. As for the allegation that Powell's son practiced under the trial judge, any assertion that defense counsel would have stricken Powell because of this is speculative.
¶ 47. Under this section Russell only makes general allegations that the State withheld exculpatory materials from Russell during discovery. Russell argues that the State's obligation to turn over materials applies to all branches of the State and not just the District Attorney's Office. Russell allows that the items in question may not have been given to the District Attorney in the first place, but this would be no excuse. Russell's specific allegations are presented below.