Opinion ID: 76484
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Carr's Trial and Habeas Proceedings

Text: 22 Carr sought production of all favorable evidence during discovery, including whether any witnesses had agreed to testify in exchange for beneficial treatment from the state. At Carr's trial, after Symonds said that she had been found guilty of all charges except for murder, she was asked whether the State ma[d]e any deals with [her] in exchange for [her] testimony such as not prosecuting her on any other charges, and she answered No. R2-10, Ex. Vol. 5, Ex. 11 at 1369. Symonds also answered [n]o when asked whether she remembered who got the bat out of the car, and explained that, although she had testified during her trial that Burgeson retrieved the bat and gave it to Dawley to hand to Carr, her earlier testimony was not true. Id. at 1420-21. At Carr's trial, Dawley testified that he was found guilty of the murder, but was not convicted of armed robbery or motor vehicle theft, and was sentenced by the juvenile court. When the prosecutor asked whether Dawley was promised anything or given any lenient treatment in exchange for his testimony or whether he was testifying in hopes of receiving a benefit from the state, Dawley answered No, sir. Id. at 1432-33. 23 Before the state habeas hearing, Carr deposed Floyd. When Floyd was asked whether Dawley's and Symonds's attorneys approached him about a plea, he answered that the deal was I would leave them in juvenile court, they would be charged with what they were charged with. They would be tried in juvenile court. Whatever they got they got and they testified, that was the deal. R2-10, Ex. Vol. 25, Ex. 59D at 18. Floyd answered No when asked if most judges would move a juvenile defendant charged with murder to adult court but confirmed that he could have gotten Dawley and Symonds transferred. Id. at 19-20. He explained that he left them in juvenile court in order to leave sentencing up to the Judge and thought it might be better from a credibility stand point because of how a jury would view concessions received in exchange for their agreement to testify. Id. at 22-23. Dawley's and Symonds's credibility was important to Floyd because without... their testimony, [the state] would have a very weak ..., but not impossible case against Carr and Burgeson. R2-10, Ex. Vol. 23, Ex. 58 at 5308. 24 During the state habeas proceedings, Carr presented the testimony of his trial attorney, Martin; Dawley; Dawley's defense attorney, Brown; and Floyd. 25 Martin stated in his affidavit that he believed Dawley's testimony was critical since Dawley was the only eyewitness to the assault and had no effective way to impeach his testimony other than minor inconsistencies. R2-10, Ex. Vol. 18, Ex. 50 at 2999-3000. He explained that he considered the issue of any deal between Dawley and the State as futile based on Dawley's testimony at both Burgeson and Carr's trials, and Floyd's statement as to his participation at Dawley's sentencing during Burgeson's trial. Id. at 3000. He stated that he would have used the information of an agreement between Dawley and Floyd in his cross-examination of Dawley and that [i]t would have had a major impact on [his] ability to discredit the State's case, impeach Dawley's credibility, and to raise doubts in the jurors' minds as to who did what to [] Young, and about [Carr's] state of mind at the time. Id. at 3002-03. Martin believed that with it, he could have cast serious doubt on Dawley's portrayal of [Carr] as a cold, calculating murderer who acted with malicious intent and who forced Dawley to comply with his orders and raised serious doubts in the jurors' minds as to whether [Carr] deserved the death penalty. Id. at 3003. 26 By affidavit, Dawley stated that he was told that if he cooperated, he would not be sent to adult court and that Floyd would try to get the judge to go easy on him. R2-10, Ex. Vol. 17, Ex. 49 at 2865. Dawley said that Floyd then told the judge off the record that Dawley had cooperated. Id. He explained that, although he decided that he did not want to testify against Carr, Floyd made it clear that he would be in trouble if [he] backed out ..., and that they would help [him] get out of the [Youth Detention Center] early if he testified. Id. at 2866. 27 Brown, Dawley's trial attorney, explained that he and Floyd had an unwritten understanding that Floyd would not move the case to adult court if Dawley testified. 5 Brown said, however, that any agreement was unenforceable and that, if Dawley had refused to testify, there was not a whole lot Mr. Floyd could have done about it except fuss and carry on. R2-10, Ex. Vol. 10, Ex. 42 at 492. Brown also noted that the decision to proceed in the juvenile court against Dawley and Symonds was made before he was appointed. Martin testified that he was unaware of the agreements and that, if he had known of them, he would have used them to impeach the witnesses at trial. 6 28 Floyd was asked whether there [was] ever a deal between the juveniles with the state, and answered: 29 In the term that you mean deal, no. There was a decision made to leave the cases in juvenile court. That decision had to be made, made very quickly. I frankly don't recall the procedure at that time.... 30 A conversation was had ... with [Dawley's counsel] because [the state's investigator] wanted to talk to Mr. Dawley some more [because he felt that] ... Dawley['s] ... initial statement... was incomplete.... I told [Dawley's counsel] that Mr. Dawley's case was going to remain in juvenile court, that what happened, I was making no deals as to disposition, that I would make no recommendations as to sentence but at the time of sentencing, I would report to the Court ... by whatever means w[ere] appropriate at the time, what, if anything, Mr. Dawley was doing, whether he was cooperating, whether he was going to testify, or whether he wasn't. 31 If that is what you mean by deal. It was not your typical if you do this, I'll do this. I had already done something that was at least irrevocable in my mind, as far as putting them in juvenile court. 32 The only other thing that came from that was, I will testify that, before the appropriate court as to what his involvement is. 33 R2-10, Ex. Vol. 10, Ex. 41 at 231-32. Floyd explained: 34 My position today is the way, ... it has always been. I take issue with the word deal. And I take issue with it for this reason. The decision to ... try Dawley and Symonds in juvenile court had already been made. A discussion was had with Mr. Brown concerning Mr. Dawley because [the investigator] wanted to talk to him some more. And I suppose the deal aspect of that came in with, if he cooperates, then I will let the Court know at the appropriate time that he cooperated; on the contrary, if he doesn't, I'll let the Court know that, as well. 35 Id. at 245-46. When asked about his deposition testimony that he agreed to leave Dawley and Symonds in juvenile court but chose not to negotiate a delinquency finding for the sake of credibility, Floyd explained that there really was no deal in the sense of a plea bargain and hoped that a jury would not think their testimony was influenced in any way. Id. at 252-55. He clarified that it was not a deal in the strict sense of that term but that he told them that, if they would testify and cooperate, that ... their cases would be tried in juvenile court. Id. at 257. He conceded that the agreement to try Dawley and Symonds in juvenile court in exchange for their testimony was not public record, but it was known to counsel for both Mr. Carr and Mrs. Burgeson because I told them. Id. at 256. He did not know the date of his disclosure to their counsel, but commented that he talked to them on many occasions. Id. at 258. 36 Carr's claim was denied by the state habeas court and the state appeals court. The state appellate court denied the Brady/Giglio/Napue claim, finding insufficient evidence of the existence of deals between the State and Symonds and Dawley. R2-10, Ex. Vol. 27, Ex. 63 at 44. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. 7 Carr II, 544 S.E.2d at 412-13.