25 October 2010 :
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the death sentence for Jerry Jerome Smith, 39, black, because jurors had been unfairly influenced by improper contacts and interactions with members of the victim's family. In 1998 a Huston County jury found Smith guilty of killing Willie James Flournoy, Theresa Ann Helms and David Lee Bennett. The 3 people were killed at a residence on Oct. 19, 1996, which police had described as a crack house. At the sentencing phase of Mr. Smith’s, his lawyers attempted to present mitigating evidence to show that he did not deserve the death penalty but the trial judge prevented them from doing so. After being sentenced to death, in 1998, Smith appealed the case argued that it was unfair to prevent him from presenting evidence in support of a life sentence. In 2003 the Alabama Supreme Court agreed, reversed Smith’s death sentence, and ordered a new sentencing trial. At Smith’s new sentencing trial in 2004, members of the victim’s family arrived at the courthouse and rather than seating themselves in the courtroom, assembled among potential jurors, talking to them about the case, and creating an appearance that they too were members of the venire. When jury questioning began, these two family members entered the courtroom with the potential jurors and sat with them during questioning. About a half-hour later, one family member began repeating aloud, “he needs to die, he took my son’s life.” Over twenty potential jurors heard these statements, five of whom eventually sat on Mr. Smith’s jury. Smith was again sentenced to death (see Nov. 9, 2004 and Jan. 5, 2005). On appeal Smith argued that his second trial was unfair because jurors were unable to fairly evaluate the proper sentence after having prejudicial contact with the victim’s family. On Sept. 29, 2006, the Court of Appeal overturned the deatj sentence. The State appelaled, but today the Alabama Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and, for the second time, reversed Smith’s sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing. The court found that the “personal contact with and comments to the jury by [the victim’s] relatives was inherently prejudicial to Smith ”. The case has been followed by Equal Justice Initiative (www.eji.org).
(source: Dothan Eagle, 22/10/2010)
