Newspaper Page Text
_The Summerville News, Thursday, December 31, 1987
14-A
Third Attorney Appointed To Aid Jarrells’ Defense
from front page
motion for any exglgrt
assistance they may need. The
judfie said Monda{ that a cog);
of the motion would have to
provided to the district at
torney's office.
However, after the judge
and lawyers for both sides
discusseg several court deci
sions on the issue of the
defense being allowed to ap
roach the judge without the
Enowledge (ex parte) of the
district attorney, Loggins
modified Monday's ruling.
Jarrells’ attorneys may file
a skeletal motion asking to
come before the E;dge for ex
pert assistance, ggins said,
rather than a detailed motion.
Enloe and Perry had contend
ed that a public motion would
“‘give away'' the defense case
to the district attorney.
“AMBUSH"
Franklin os)posed the ex
parte proposal, sayinf that
Jarrells wasn't entitled to
“trial by ambush.”
Loggins said after those in
itial motions are filed, he might
consider allowing more detail
ed motions to be filed by the
defense “possiblg in camera’’
(with only the judge reviewing
the material).
Another hearing will be
held at 1:30 p.m. next Monday
on a defense motion to sup
press evidence a%ainst Jarrells.
Motions filed Monday
afternoon against the three
Jarrells indictments and
against the signing of the in
dictments by a person elected
as assistant foreman are also
likely to be heard next
Monday.
Loggins is also expected to
rule on an age grouping issue
next Monday.
MONDAY
Much of Monday's hearing
involved testimony, claims and
counterclaims over the ac
curacy and validity of at least
two sets of calculations involv
ing the county's voter and jury
lists.
Arguments on an oral mo
tion presented by Jarrells’ at
torneys on Dec. 21 never
materialized Monday. They
had contended that the district
attorney's office had told at
least two witnesses not to talk
to defense lawyers.
Judge Loggins listed the
oral motion at the beginning of
Monday's hearing as one he ex
pected to hear arguments and
evidence on during the session.
The district attorney’s office
pointed out in mid-afternoon
that the issue hadn't been
heard.
Finster, at that point, ask
ed the judge for a five-minute
recess, which was granted.
However, nothing was brought
up on the matter by defense at
torneys or the prosecution
after the recess.
WITHHELD
Judge Logins Monday also
withheld a gormal ruling on
Enloe's ex parte request that
defense attorneys be allowed to
Judge Hands Down Gag Order In Jarrells Case
A ‘‘gag order’’ has been
issued in the Jarrells murder
case, prohibiting lawmen, court
officials or lawyers from mak
ing any comments on the pro
ceedings outside the
courtroom.
The order also apparently
halted a purported telephone
poll of potential jurors in the
case on behalf ofJ the defense.
TWO ORDERS
Chattooga County Superior
Court Judge Joseph “Bo"” Log
gins handed down two separate
orders as another hearing in
the Jarrells case began at 10
a.m. Mondg{. One restricts
“extrajudicial statements' and
the other restricts communica
tion with prospective jurors.
However, both orders discuss
contact with jurors by parties
involved in tLe case and pro
hibit comments on the case
outside the courtroom.
The orders do not prohibit
news media coverage of open
courtroom proceedings.
They apparently halted a
telephone poll ofy potential
jurors in the case. Several
Chattooga residents reported
early last week that they had
been contacted by telephone
and questioned at length about
their views on the Jarrells case.
Jonathen Jarrells, 31,
Oceana, W.Va., has been charg
ed with murder, aggravated
assault and armed ro%)rber in
connection with an incicg'ent
last Aug. 27 in which Miss Ger
trude Estelle Elrod, 75, Chat
toogaville, was killed, and her
sister, Miss Lorraine Elrod, 71,
was critically injured.
POLL
“We've (Jarrells’ defense)
been offered some services,
yes,’ Sam Finster said last
week. Finster is one of two
court-appointed lawyers
representing Jarrells. He
declined to name the firm con-
go before the judge at a later
time to file a motion seeking
exrert assistance for the
defense — without notifying
the district attorney's office. In
the meantime, Loggins said
Enloe would have to file any
motion of that nature with the
office of clerk of court and pro
vide a cogi' to the district at
tomex'. Enloe indicated that he
would likely file a motion seek
ing funds for an expert to con
duct blood tests for the
defense.
The main purpose of Mon
da{'s hearing was to hear
defense challenges to the array
of the August term Grand Jury .
that indicted Jarrells, and to
the trial jury pool, as well as
the ex parte motion. Jarrells'
arraignment was also set for
Monday afternoon.
ACCURACY
Finster contended that
there was a Testion as to the
accuracy of the county’s voter
list and its numbers. He called
Elsie Echols, chief registrar, as
his first witness.
He also introduced 13 voter
registration precinct books in
to evidence in the case.
Finster and Judge Loggins
at times apFeared to be
somewhat contused about the
numbers and dates cited in
Mrs. Echols testimony.
As of the Nov. 4, 1986
general election, she said, there
were 9,421 registered voters in
the county. That number was
certified as being accurate on
Oct. 9, 1986, she added, since
registration for the Nov. 4 elec
tion closed 30 days before the
vote.
That Oct. 9 list was also us
ed by the county’s jury com
missioners on Feb. 2, 1987 to
set up new trial jury and Grand
Jury lists, she said.
The voter list was purged
on May 27, 1987, leaving a
total of 8,897 voters, Mrs.
Echols said. The Democratic
Party asked for a voter list this
fall, she said, and the registrars
made additional corrections,
leaving a total of 8,774 voters
as of Oct. 21, 1987.
JURY LISTS
However, she again pointed
out that the certified list of
Oct. 9, 1986 was used by the
jury commissioners last
February to create new jury
lists, which were evidently us
ed for the August term Grand
Jury and may be used during
the winter, 1988 term of
Superior Court.
Finster told Judge Loggins
that there was more than a five
percent disparity between
what is represented by the cur
rent jury pool and the popula
tion of a ‘‘particular group’’ in
the county.
Judge Loggins certified on
Dec. 21 the number and percen
tages of males, females, blacks
and whites in Chattooga. He
also certified that the dif
ference between the county’s
actual population of those
groups and their representa
tion in the Grand Jury and trial
jury pools were sligtly more
ducting the survey or who was
payinfi for the poll. Finster said
then he didn’t want to ‘“‘give
away what I think may hap
pen” in the case on Dec. 28.
However, no poll results were
brought up by Finster during
M(()inday's hearing before
Judge Loggins.
'fihe fugrlnmerville lawyer
said last week he knew ‘“‘very,
very little’ about the survey
but added that he thought a
hearing on the poll wou%d be
held on Monday, Dec. 28. No
hearing was held but Judge
Loggins handed down his orfer
saying that it violated
American and Georgia Bar
Association ethics for a lawyer
or anyone on his behalf to con
tact potential juriors before
trial of a case.
HEARING?
Loggins said last week,
however, that he hadn’t set a
hearing on the issue although
either the defense or prosecu
tion would bring up tfie issue
on Dec. 28.
Loggins did meet with
Finster and Roland Enloe,
another defense attorney, and
the district attorney's office on
Dec. 21 to caution them about
the scope of some of the pur
ported questions in the survey.
David Daniel of WGTA
radio said Monday that the sta
tion provided Loggins with a
transcript of calls to the “‘Feed
back” telephone call-in pro
gram complaining about the
survey.
ONE ORDER
The order restricting com
munication with prospective
jurors follows:
“This court finds that while
jurors have not yet been sum
moned for trial service in this
case, and the likelihood that
many of the jury pool will have
to be summoned in this carital
case, combined with the local
than zero percent. No more
than five percent is permitted,
under a Georgia Supreme
Court ruling.
AGE GROUP
However, Finster contend
ed that the disparity involved
another cognizable (with the
court's jurisdiction) %':o%p. the
ages from 18 throui 29. The
defense attorney acknowledg
ed that age is not one of the
Eroups recognized by the
eo;gia Supreme Court but
added that he thought the
federal 11th Circuit gourt of
Appeals "is getting close’ to
recognizing age as a cognizable
group.
Judge Logiins responded
that he didn't think defl;nse or
prosecution lawyers could
second-guess the federal court.
David Dunn, chief assistant
district attorney, said voter
records aren't separated into
age groups and he contended
that young people are not a
cognizable group insofar as the
courts are concerned.
Dunn said the prosecution
was willing to sit down with
Finster and calculate the
percentages of various age
groups and stipulate them to
Judge Loggins. However, he
said Lann Cordle, clerk of
court, already had calculated
the numbers and percentages
of certain age groups.
Loggins askedp whether
both siges could use the Nov.
4, 1986 voter list and data pro
vided by the administrative of
ficer of Georgia courts.
Those records don't list the
18 through 29 age group
separately, Finster saig. but
rather uses 18 through 24 and
25 through 34 groupings.
SURVEY
After alate morning recess,
Finster told Judge Loggins
that he, the defense attorney,
had done a survey of the Grand
Jury records and the voter's
list and that a college student
he had hired had done a similar
survey of the trial jury list.
Loggins said he felt the on
ly issue involved the official
voter's list figures as they ex
isted on Feb. 2, 1987, when the
jury commissioners last revis
ed the county’s jury lists.
Finster said he felt the jury
lists should be revised more
often than every two years as
required by law.
The defense lawyer con
tended that more than a five
percent disparity existed in the
18 through 29 age group in the
jury list when the county’s
population in that grouping
was considered.
DELAY?
Loggins speculated that if
the jury lists of Feb. 2, 1987
might have to be revised, the
tentative trial date of Feb. 22,
1988 might have to be postpon
ed. He first suggested that the
district attorney’s office review
Finster’'s lists but said later
Monday afternoon that it was
unlikely the defense and pro
secution would be able to agree
on the issue.
notoriety of this case and
pretrial publicity, plus the
issues raised in motions pen
ding and motions to be Filed
make it essential in this case
that there be no extrajudicial
contact with potential jurors
by the lawyers, litigants, or of
ficials in this case except as
mandated by law.
“Ethicaf’ considera
tions . . . under Canon 7 of the
Canons of Ethics, adopted by
the State Bar of Georgia. ..
provides: To safeguard the im
partiality that is essential to
the judicial process, veniremen
and jurors s%ould be protected
against extraneous in
fluence . . . There should be no
extrajudicial communications
with veniremen prior to trial or
with jurors during trial by or
on behalf of a lawyer connected
with the case. ..
‘‘Ethical considera
tions . . . under Canon 7 of the
Canons of Ethics, adopted by
the State Bar of
Georgia . . . provides: ‘Com
munications with or investiga
tions of members of families of
veniremen or jurors by a
lawyer or by anyone on his
behalf are subject to restric
tions imposed upon the lawyer
with res?]ect to his communica
tion with or investigations of
veniremen and jurors.’
“Directory rules adopted
by the State Bar of
Georgia ... provides as
follows: Before the trial of a
case a lawyer connected
therewith sfiall not com
municate with or cause another
to communicate with anyone
he knows to be a member of the
venire from which the jury will
be selected for the trial of the
case.
STANDARDS
““ABA Standards relating
to the Administration of
Criminal Justice, The Defense
Function 7.3 provides, ‘(a) It is
Tonya Hill, Summerville, a
freshman accountinfi student
at West Georgia College, was
called by Finster to testify
about her survey of the trial
jury list and her calculations on
the Grand Jury list.
Considering the 18 through
29 age group, Miss Hill said
there was a disparity of 9.05
percent between the county’s
population in that age raufie
and it's representation on the
current Grand Jury list. She
also testified that there was a
5.76 percent disparity between
that age group's population in
the county and its representa
tion on the trial jury list.
She said she had determin
ed that there were 1,178 geople
eligible to serve on the Grand
Jury, 21 fewer than the 1,199
listed by the jury commis
sioners. Miss Hill also said
there were 2,956 qualified to
serve on the trial f'ury. 44 fewer
than the 3,000 listed by the
jury commission.
CAUTIONED
Dunn, while cross
examining Miss Hill, caution
ed her about looking to Finster
to obtain clues on how to
answer Dunn's questions.
Later, Dunn asked to see Miss
Hill's notes. After looking at
Finster, who shook his head
slightly, she refused. After
Dunn's second request, she
again looked at Finster, who
nodded his head slightly. She
then gave Dunn her notes.
Miss Hill said she removed
%, /’,,; i L A
¢ iy e o 8 5. A
KN AN e
kv 9 % :“’ 27"/ . 7 & # 4
bg b i
KEW ' "
2 I
v ”%Efié e
’ s b
: ; Gy e
L L {”’“g
Vi o e
‘ i ; i y ‘7‘, ’ ; > g
S T L i i o Y :”; T B o
JARRELLS (C; ESCORTED BACK TO CHATTOOGA COUNTY JAIL
Sheriff McConnell (L), Dep. Larry Kellett, Inv. Ron Turner (R)
unprofessional for the lawyer
to communicate privately with
persons summoned for jury du
ty or impaneled as jurors con
cerning the case prior to or dur
ing the trial . . . ' Similar provi
sion is set out in The Prosecu
tion Function 5.4.
It is therefore ordered that
the attorneys handling these
cases, their legal, investigative
and office assistants, the defen
dant and the surviving family
members of the victims, as well
as any and all persons acting in
their behalf or at their behest,
and the district attorney and
staff members, clerk, sheriff,
court reporter and bailiffs of
this court and any person ac
ting in their behaf} or at their
behest are restrained and en
i’oined from contacting, direct
y or indirectly and privately
any person whose name is
listed on the Chattooga Coun
ty traverse jury list in regard
to this case or the attorneys or
parties involved or their opi
nions thereof . . . "
GAG ORDER
Judge Loggins' ‘‘gag’’
order follows:
*“This court, of its own mo
tion, has considered the
possibility and necessity of an
order concerning problems of
prejudicial pretrial and trial
Publicity, the trial judge’s
responsibility to control court
proceedings and the trial
courts duty to protect the
defendant's constitutional
rights to a fair trial. In this
case there has been various and
sundry articles appearing in
the weekly newspapers which
have general circulation within
Chattooga County and also
various and sundry articles
from the electronic news media
beginninf on or about Sept. 1,
1987, and continuing up to and
including the piesent time.
This court now anticipates
granting an order requiring the
people from her copy of the
voter's list and trial jury list if
she found from voter
registrar's books that those in
dividuals had died, had moved
out of the county or were un
ardoned felons. Finster
Kimself testified Monday after
noon that he had also asked
Miss Hill to remove duplicate
names from the lists.
She also testified under
cross-examination from Dunn
that she had used part of the
1980 census to calculate the 18
through 29 age group popula
tion in Chattooga. Tgere were
3,834 in that group in 1980, she
said. The total number of peo
ple in the county from 18
through 64 was 12,703, Miss
Hill continued.
She conceded to Dunn that
people 65 and over in the coun
ty were excluded from her
calculations. Miss Hill also said
she didn’t calculate the list by
race or sex.
“BADGERING”
Finster at one point accus
ed Dunn of *“*badgering’ Miss
Hill. Judge Loggins said,
however, that an attorney was
allowed a wide latitud}; on
cross-examination.
Miss Hill then accused
Dunn of badgering her.
After a Funcheon recess,
Judge Loggins ordered Finster
to take the stand to testify on
his survey of the county's
grand jury list.
On cross-examination by
Dunn, Finster said he surveyed
recordation of all hearings on
motions, arraignment, bench
conferences, jury voir dire,
opening statements, closing
arguments, testimony and
each and every proceed}i’ng in
volved in pre-trial and trial of
this case and to comply with
the requirements of the
“Unifieél Appeal Procedures’
as prescribe(F by the Supreme
Court of the State of Georgia.
MEDIA
“Proceedings in this matter
are frequently covered by
representatives of the print
and electronic media and such
r?ipresentatives are to be allow
ed access of the proceedings.
Members of the district at
torney’'s staff, defense at
torneys and various law en
forcement officers have from
time to time made statements
to media representatives con
cerning the case. This court,
contemporaneously herewith is
entering an order restricting
‘communications with prospec
tive jurors due to ora? allega
tions that persons on behal?r of
the defense were contacting
residents of Chattooga Coun
ty...and particular%y those
persons whose names were in
the jury box for Chattooga
County in regard to their opi
nions as to some facts at issue
in this case, and otherwise con
ducting a ‘poll’ of prospective
jurors who will be summoned
for jury duty in this case.
Defense attorneys have orally
stated their objections to the
venue, contending that a fair
trial might be impossible in
this immediate area.
U. S. COURT
“The United States
Supreme Court in Sheppard v.
Maxwell . . . focused on the
trial court’s duty to protect the
defendant’s (,yonstitutional
right to fair trial, as follows:
‘Due process requires that
the Grand Jury list and gave it
to Miss Hill, who mage the
caulculations by age grouping.
The defense attorney said
he told Miss Hill to omit from
those calculations anyone 65 or
older in the county because
Georgia law allows anyone 70
or older to have their name
removed from the voters' list
by filing a written request. It
wasn't possible to break down
the census data to an age
grouping of 70 or above,
Finster said, so he asked Miss
Hill to break it down to 65 and
above instead.
“Actually, .1. den't
remember,’’ Finster said when
asked by Dunn whether his
survey and that of Miss Hill
found the sex and race dispari
ty to be greater than five
percent.
Lann Cordle, clerk of court,
was called to testify by Dunn.
Cordle went over his work
sheet as clerk to the jury com
mission with both Dunnd and
Finster.
And at Judge Loggins' re
quest, Cordle went over the
jury commission'’s certification
of the county’s population by
race and sex and its certifica
tion of those same groups on
the Grand Jury and tria.{) jury
lists. The figures were identical
to those read and certified by
Judge Loggins on Dec. 21.
ARGUMENTS
In closing arguments on the
age grouping issue, Finster
contended that the ‘‘distinctive
the accused receive a trial by
an impartial jury free from out
side influences. Given the per
vasiveness of modern com
munications and the difficulty
of effacing prejudicial publici
ty from the minds of the jurors,
the trial courts must take
strong measures to ensure that
the balance is never weighed
against the accused... of
course, there is nothing that
proscribes the press from
reporting events that transpire
in the Courtroom. The courts
must take such steps by rule
and regulation that will protect
their processes from prejudicial
outside interferences. Neither
prosecutors, counsel for
defense, the accused,
witnesses, court staff nor en
forcement officers coming
under the jurisdiction of the
court should be permitted to
frustrate its function. Col
laboration between counsel and
the press as to information af
fecting the fairness of a
criminal trial is not only sub
ject to regulation, but is Kighly
censurable and worthy of
disciplinary measures.
““The U. S. Supreme Court
in Nebraska Press Association
V. Stuart . . . observed,
... that pretrial publicity —
even pervasive, adverse
{)ublicity — does not inevitably
ead to an unfair trial. The
capacity of the jury eventual
ly empaneled to decide the case
fairly is influenced by the tone
and extent of the publicity,
which is in Eart. an(f often in
large part, shaped by what at
torneys, police and other of
ficials do to precipiate news
coverage. The trial judge has a
ma&or responsibility. What the
Judge says about a case, in or
out of the courtroom, is likely
to a;()ipear in newspapers and
broadcasts. More important,
the measures a Judge takes or
fails to take to mitigate the ef
fects of pretrial pub]%city —the
group" of 18 throufh 29 had
een ‘‘systematically exclud
ed"” from the jury lists, that the
group was not ‘‘fairly
represented” and that the en
tire jux;y pool was ‘‘tainted.”
The defense lawyer contended
that there was an “opportuni-
L{, for discrimination’’ and that
there was a ‘‘substantial
disparity’ between the coun
ty's 18 through 29 population
and its representation on the
trial and grand Jury lists.
He presented a letter he
said was from an Emory
University expert in
demographics offering to deter
mine if there is a valid 18
through 29 age group in the
county — at a cost of S9OO. He
offered an oral motion that
funds be provided for the
defense to hire the expert, but
Judge Loggins told F[l)nster to
file a written motion.
HOW FAR?
The judge also speculated
on ‘“‘how far can it Ee taken?
I'm just wondering if you
should take it to its ultimate
end?”’ He cited a hypothetical
example of whether if Jarrells
was 27 years of age would
defense lawyers ask fi)r an age
grouping of 26 to 28 or even of
277 J‘;rre]ls was 31 on Oct. 16,
1987.
Finster said such a
breakdown would be
“ridiculous.” The defense at
torney also said that age
grouping was the first to go to
integrated schools and added
that Jarrells himself didn't
have to be a member of a par
ticular age group to object to
disparate representation on a
jury.
Loggins allowed the letter
from the Emory expert to be
filed with the clerk but held
back on saying it was evidence
in the case.
“I don’t understand the rul
ing, your honor,” Finster said.
“That is the ruling, Mr.
Finster,” the judge saicf, look
ing intently at the lawyer.
“Yessir, I know that's the
ruling but I don’t understand
it,” Finster replied.
“We'll get to that later,”
the judge said.
However, that specific issue
never arose again during the
hearing.
Dunn, in his closing argu
ment, said there was no court
ruling that had ever held that
the age grouping of 18 through
29 was a cognizable group for
legal purposes. Some cases
have said a defendant may try
to offer proof that a particular
group exists for legal purposes,
Dunn said, but he contended
that no proof had been offered
in the Jarrells case.
““Mr. Finster saying it just
doesn’t make it, no matter how
many times he says it,”” Dunn
said.
“UNRELIABLE”
The statistical information
offered by Finster and Miss
Hall involved ‘‘tailor-made
figures,”” Dunn said. He
pointed out that people 65 and
over were deliberate?y exclud-
measures described in Shep
pard — may well determine
whether the defendant receives
a trial consistent with the re
quirements of due process .. .
TRIAL JUDGE
“For a trial judge to predict
what information may in fact
undermine the impartiality of
jurors is difficult if not impossi
ble. The difficulty of drafting
an order that will effectively
keep prejudicial information
from prospective jurors is
similari)y dig?cult but is within
the responsibility of a trial
judge.
“Pursuant to the holding in
Nebraska Press Association v.
Stuart, this court does not take
any steps which proscribe the
press or media from reporting
events that transpire in the
courtroom.
ORDER
‘“This court, however,
orders and directs that during
pendency of this case and un
til final determination in the
trial court, prosecutors,
counsel for defense, their legal,
investigative and ofgce
assistants (whether paid or pro
bono et malo), the surviving
family members of the victims,
as well as any and all persons
acting in their behalf or at their
behest, and persons affiliated
therewith, the accused, court
staff — including clerk of court,
sheriff and his lawful deputies,
bailiffs, court reporters,
witnesses, whether law enforce
ment officers or not, shall not
release, make or authorize the
release of any extra-judicial
statement, for dissemination
by any means of public com
munication, relating to those
matters and concerning:
(1) The prior criminal
record (including arrests, in
dictments or other charges of
crime), if any exists, or the
ed from the data presented by
Jarrells' defense and because of
that, the calculations were “‘in
herently unreliable.”
A 1985 Geor?'a Supreme
Court ruling held that age
groupinfi is not protected as a
group, the assistant district at
torney said. In the case cited
Dunn said the high court had
held that an age disparity of
more than 28 percent was
allowable.
Finster, after briefly
reading the court case, told
Lol%gins that the ruling had
held that 18 through 29 was a
protected grouping.
Dunn said Finster had
misread the ruling. The assis
tant DA said Finster had read
a comment by the trial judge in
the case but that the comment
was not upheld by the ap
pellate court.
Loggins read some of his
research into the issue and add
ed that he would probably rule
on the issue later Monday. He
added that he would rule on the
request for funds for a
demographic survey after
receiving a written motion.
However, rulings on the issues
weren't expected until next
Monday.
FOREMAN?
Jarrells’ original challenge
to the Grand Jury also includ
ed a challenge to the foreman
but an amended defense mo
tion left out the challenge to
the foreman.
After a brief bit of wranfil
ing between Finster and the
district attorney's office,
Finster signed a stipulation
that jury foremen for the last
15 years in Chattooga have
been white men.
Loggins pointed out that a
foreman may be appointed by
a judge or electedp by other
members of the Grand Jury.
He said he was unaware of any
appointed foremen since he
began practicing law in 1957.
After the stipulation was
filed, arguments began over
the ex parte motion filed by
Enloe, asking that defense
lawyers be allowed to approach
Loggins without knowfedge of
the DA to seek funds for expert
assistance.
TO DA?
Enloe said if the defense
had to file the motions in the
clerk’s office and make a copy
available for the DA, the pro
secution would automatically
discern the defense case.
Loggins asked how a closed
hearing and sealed record
‘‘squares with the First
Amendment’’ allowing the
press and public to attending
court heam;%s. and a require
ment that all proceedings be
taken down by a court
reporter.
Enloe said records of hear
ings have been sealed in other
Georgia counties, including
Catoosa in the Lookout Moun
tain Judicial Circuit.
The judge said he wasn't
satisfied that the court deci
sions cited by Enloe were
see THIRD ATTORNEY, page 15-A
character or reputation of the
accused;
*(2) The existence or con
tent of any confession, admis
sion, or statement given by the
accused, if any exists, or the
refusal or failure of the accus
ed to make any statement;
**(3) The performance of any
examinations or tests or the ac
cused's refusal or failure to
submit to any examination or
test;
‘‘(4) The identity,
testimony, or credibility of pro
spective witnesses;
*(5) The possibility of a plea
of guilty to the offense charg
ed or a lesser offense;
‘(6) Any opinion as to the
accused's guilt or innocence or
as to the merits of the case or
any evidence in the case;
*(7) Any opinion as to the
fairness of the proceedings, the
probability of fair trial of this
case in this venue, the presence
or absence of prejudice in this
venue regarding this case or
the defendant, and propriety or
impropriety of the prosecution
seeking the death sentence in
this case;
‘*(8) Any personal remarks
concerning counsel, the trial
judge; the accused or the of
ficers of the court.
“The foregoing shall not be
construed to preclude any at
torney or court officer, from
quoting or referring without
comment to public records on
file in the court in the case;
from announcing the schedul
ing or result of any official pro
ceeding in the judicial process;
or from announcing without
further comment that the ac
cused denies the charges made
against him..."
et et
Use NEWS Classifieds!