Jones v. Francis

16 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Warden

    815 F.3d 689 (11th Cir. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    Noting the mitigating nature of certain new evidence but pointing out that a "substantial flaw[]" in that evidence was how it "would have opened the door to a vast array of aggravating evidence that likely would have overwhelmed the balance of mitigating evidence"

    Jones filed a state habeas corpus petition, which the Superior Court of Butts County denied in 1982; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed that denial in 1984. Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60, 312 S.E.2d 300, 306 (1984). The United States Supreme Court denied Jones's petition for a writ of certiorari.

  2. Jones v. Kemp

    706 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1989)   Cited 45 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the use of a Bible by the jury constituted an impermissible "search for the command of extra-judicial `law' from source other than the trial judge"

    On September 28, 1983, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the lower court's denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60, 312 S.E.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 228, 83 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984). On May 30, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

  3. People v. Harlan

    109 P.3d 616 (Colo. 2005)   Cited 43 times
    Holding the use of written Biblical materials in the jury room was improper under state law that prohibited "[e]xposure of a jury to information or influences outside of the trial process itself

    See, e.g., Burch v. Corcoran, 273 F.3d 577, 591 (4th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's finding of fact that juror carrying Bible, reciting verses and reading from Bible during deliberations was probably not improper communication and, if so, there was "no reasonable possibility that the jury verdict was influenced"); McNair v. State, 706 So.2d 828, 838 (Ala.[Crim.]App. 1997) (no prejudice where selections from Psalm 121 ("my help cometh from the Lord") and Luke ("[j]udge not and ye shall not be judged . . . forgive and ye shall be forgiven") were "intended to encourage, and had the effect of encouraging, the jurors to take their obligation seriously and decide the question . . . based only on the evidence presented"); People v. Mincey, 2 Cal.4th 408, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388, 425 (Cal. 1992) (no prejudice where trial court discovered that jury read Bible after day's deliberations were over and admonished them from any further consideration of Bible); Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60, 312 S.E.2d 300, 303 (Ga. 1984) (no prejudice against defendant where Bible was not secreted into jury room and no "extraneous influence" came to bear on jurors); Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 203 (Ind. 1997) (no prejudice where juror evidence showed that Bible was not consulted as an extra-legal source of authority during deliberations); State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 40 P.3d 139, 205 (Kan. 2001) (no recall of jury required where juror affidavit gave no evidence that biblical material played a "major role" in verdict). We do not hold that an individual juror may not rely on and discuss with the other jurors during deliberation his or her religious upbringing, education, and beliefs in making the extremely difficult "reasoned judgment" and "moral decision" he or she is called upon to make in the fourth step of the penalty phase under Colorado law.

  4. People v. Harlan

    No. 03SA173 (Colo. Mar. 28, 2005)   1 Legal Analyses

    ejudice requiring reversal under the particular facts of the case. See, e.g., Burch v. Corcoran, 273 F.3d 577, 591 (4th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's finding of fact that juror carrying Bible, reciting verses and reading from Bible during deliberations was probably not improper communication and, if so, there was "no reasonable possibility that the jury verdict was influenced"); McNair v. State, 706 So.2d 828, 838 (Ala.App. 1997) (no prejudice where selections from Psalm 121 ("my help cometh from the Lord") and Luke ("[j]udge not and ye shall not be judged . . . forgive and ye shall be forgiven") were "intended to encourage, and had the effect of encouraging, the jurors to take their obligation seriously and decide the question . . . based only on the evidence presented"); People v. Mincey, 827 P.2d 388, 425 (Cal. 1992) (no prejudice where trial court discovered that jury read Bible after day's deliberations were over and admonished them from any further consideration of Bible); Jones v. Francis, 312 S.E.2d 300, 303 (Ga. 1984) (no prejudice against defendant where Bible was not secreted into jury room and no "extraneous influence" came to bear on jurors);Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 203 (Ind. 1997) (no prejudice where juror evidence showed that Bible was not consulted as an extra-legal source of authority during deliberations); State v. Kleypas, 40 P.3d 139, 205 (Kan. 2001) (no recall of jury required where juror affidavit gave no evidence that biblical material played a "major role" in verdict). We do not hold that an individual juror may not rely on and discuss with the other jurors during deliberation his or her religious upbringing, education, and beliefs in making the extremely difficult "reasoned judgment" and "moral decision" he or she is called upon to make in the fourth step of the penalty phase under Colorado law.

  5. Jones v. State

    263 Ga. 904 (Ga. 1994)   Cited 14 times

    In 1984 this Court affirmed the denial of Jones' petition for habeas corpus. Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60 ( 312 S.E.2d 300) (1984). Subsequently, a federal district court overturned Jones' death sentence and ordered resentencing.

  6. White v. State

    342 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. 1986)   Cited 9 times

    We previously have reviewed and approved this instruction. Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60, 63-64 ( 312 S.E.2d 300) (1984). See also Jarrell v. Balkcom, 735 F.2d 1242, 1256 (11th Cir. 1984).

  7. McKenzie v. State

    371 S.E.2d 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 32 times
    Affirming co-defendants' convictions for rape when victim had cervical abrasions consistent with forcible sex

    Akers v. State, 179 Ga. App. 529 (1) ( 346 S.E.2d 861) (1986). See also Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60 (5) ( 312 S.E.2d 300) (1984). Offering to make known a suspect's confession to the district attorney and the trial judge is not an offer of benefit.

  8. Jones v. GDCP Warden

    753 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2014)   Cited 94 times
    Finding AEDPA deference still applies even when the state habeas court adopted verbatim the respondent's proposed order

    The United States Supreme Court denied Jones's petition for a writ of certiorari. Jones v. Francis, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 228, 83 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984). Jones then petitioned for habeas relief in federal court.

  9. Jefferson v. Hall

    570 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that "Jefferson's counsel were required only to make a reasonable decision that further investigation into Jefferson's mental health was unnecessary"

    Instead, many of the cases he has drawn our attention to involve instances in which the prosecutor or the trial judge introduced religion to the jury, or where the jury considered the Bible as a group. See McNair, 416 F.3d at 1307; United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 740-41 (4th Cir. 1991); Jones v. Kemp, 706 F.Supp. 1534, 1560 (N.D.Ga. 1989); Carruthers v. State, 272 Ga. 306, 308-11, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000), over-ruled on other grounds by Vergara v. State, 283 Ga. 175, 657 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. 2008); Ice v. Commonwealth, 667 S.W.2d 671, 676 (Ky. 1984); Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 630, 644 (1991); see also Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60, 61, 312 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. 1984) (finding harmless error where the trial judge permitted a Bible to go out with the jury during its deliberations in the sentencing phase of the trial, and defense counsel's closing argument traced the history of the Bible from a milieu in which the death penalty was imposed for such things as witch-craft and false prophesy, to a new milieu of forgiveness and mercy). V.

  10. Ross v. Kemp

    756 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 25 times
    In Ross v. Kemp, 756 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) we considered the possibility that appellant was a non-shooter and that the fatal shot was fired by his accomplice.

    There are several Georgia cases discussing Enmund in which a death sentence was upheld but those cases concern fact situations in which the defendant was actually involved in the killing. See, e.g., Jones v. Francis, 252 Ga. 60, 312, S.E.2d 300 (1984); Johnson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 812, 295 S.E.2d 63 (1982); Buttrum v. State, 249 Ga. 652, 293 S.E.2d 334 (1982). In Williams v. State, 250 Ga. 553, 300 S.E.2d 301 (1983), the defendant raised the identical issue presented in this case, i.e. that he was entitled to an Enmund instruction.