In nearly every way, the Tex McIver verdict is confounding
A look at what jurors decided and what form an appeal could take
"Occasionally during the course of Tex McIvers six-week trial in the shooting death of his wife, his bookkeeper and friend Rachel Styles would drive to his Buckhead condo to drop off some meals for him. Pot roast one time. Crab cakes another. Just comfort food, she told me. Shed leave the meals with the concierge, because she was, to her chagrin, a witness for the prosecution, meaning she and Tex were forbidden from communicating. It was Styles who had made copies for Diane McIver of what Diane had described as her second will, a will that ultimately was never found, but which became a key facet in the prosecutions argument that Tex wanted Diane dead.
Styles was in Florida when yesterdays verdict came down, watching a live stream on YouTube. On the first countmalice murderthe jury foreman announced, Not guilty. But then came guilty verdicts on counts two through five, including felony murder. I just started bawling, Styles said this morning. I was just hysterical.
The Tex McIver trial was that rare murder case that compels our attention for reasons that transcend the voyeuristic...
n many waysin just about every waythe jurys verdict was confounding. Acquitting Tex of malice murder meant the state had not proven that he had planned to kill his wife. But convicting him of aggravated assault meant he had intended to shoot her. That he intended to hurt her but not kill her is totally inconsistent with the states theory, which is that he needed her dead in order to resolve his financial problems, Hall said. Convicting him of aggravated assault was the felony the jury needed to convict him of felony murder, which is when a defendant kills another person in the commission of a felony. Intent to kill is not required.
Hall believes the McIver verdicts represent whats called jury nullification, in which the jury could not agree on intent to kill, so compromised with a conviction of felony murder. It doesnt make legal sense, Hall said. Theres going to be a significant number of post-trial motions on this. A central question the verdict raises, Hall said, is simply, Was this decision just because the jury was convinced Tex McIver was a bad person?...
...the sheer number of questions298raises a potential avenue of appeal for the defense, Hall believes. What defense lawyers will argue is that Judge McBurneys policy of allowing jury questions allowed the jury to consider a case that hadnt actually been put up, she said. The state has a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to put forward certain theories or evidence, having this panoply of jury questions that might have been on issues that the state hadnt raised could be an issue. For 298 juror questions to come in, you start to wonder if that tips the scale away from the states burden....
Finally, by Ruckers account and at least one jurors, viewing the Ford Expedition where McIver shot his wife was pivotal in reaching its guilty verdicts. That the SUV was not admitted into evidence by the stateMcBurney did it himselfis another potential path for appeal, Hall said. Without the judge admitting the SUV after the close of evidence, the jury would not have been able to sit in the SUV while handling the firearm, something they did not do before the close of evidence. This is a potentially reversible error...."
http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/nearly-every-way-tex-mciver-verdict-confunding/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
