A lawyer on Monday asked the Georgia Supreme Court to do something it has not done in more than 30 years -- throw out a death sentence because it is so out of line with sentences imposed in similar cases.
The case of Winston Clay Barrett, sentenced to death for killing his best friend, is unlike other capital cases that involve robbery, rape, underage victims or prolonged torture, Atlanta lawyer Jack Martin argued. This was a drunken brawl that was provoked by the victim and which involved no premeditation, he said.
During oral arguments, Martin asked the court to consider a study by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that examined all Georgia murder convictions from 1995 through 2004. Martin told the court there were 17 murder cases with facts similar to Barrett's during that time frame where the defendants received life -- not death -- sentences. No similar cases received a death sentence, he said.
The AJC's study, introduced into evidence during Barrett's appeal, "is not the end all or be all," but the court should pay attention to it, Martin said. The court is expected to rule later this year.
The AJC series, published in 2007, found that Georgia's death-penalty law had failed to ensure a predictable and even-handed application of capital punishment. The newspaper researched the facts and circumstances behind 2,328 murder cases, relying largely on court records, police and medical examiner's reports and interviews. The newspaper asked each of the state's 49 district attorneys to review a summary of the data, and many provided input to clarify facts.
In a filing, Lindsey Hurst of the state Attorney General's Office told the court that the AJC's death-penalty study "is not binding on this court, nor is it persuasive authority." On Monday, Hurst told the justices that Barrett's death sentence should be upheld because the Towns County man had a history of violence and killed Danny "Stumpy" Youngblood by smashing his head on a table, pistol whipping him, gouging his eye and then shooting him in the back of the head.
When the court studies the case to determine if Barrett's death sentence was an "outlier," the court will determine "it simply is not," Hurst said.
But two of the court's seven justices expressed concerns.
Justice Robert Benham said when he read the facts of the case, he came to one question: "What is it that makes this case a death-penalty case?"
Justice David Nahmias estimated that since he joined the court in 2009, it has considered about 300 murder appeals. "I don't recall even one close to this that was a death-penalty case," he said.
The August 2002 murder occurred after Barrett and Youngblood returned to Barrett's apartment following a night of heavy drinking in Helen. Both men passed out in chairs and, around 5 a.m., Barrett got up to use the bathroom. Youngblood got up to do the same, but instead of finding the bathroom, he urinated on Barrett's television. He then went into the Barretts' bedroom, pulled down his pants and acted as if he were going to defecate on the bed.
After Barrett's wife told Youngblood to leave, Youngblood balled up his fist and yelled an obscenity at her, according to court records. Barrett burst out of the bathroom in a rage and began beating Youngblood until Barrett shot him in the head with a .357 Magnum.
By law, the state Supreme Court must make sure every death sentence is in line with punishment in similar cases and throw out those that are disproportionately severe. When the court upholds a death sentence, its opinion always cites a number of prior cases that had comparable facts and also received capital sentences. The court rarely considers life sentences imposed in similar cases when conducting its review, and it has not reversed a death sentence on so-called "proportionality" grounds since 1981.
The AJC's death-penalty series in 2007 found that the state Supreme Court, when conducting proportionality reviews, had been citing cases that had already been overturned on appeal to justify capital sentences it was upholding. Since the AJC published those findings, the court has not cited an overturned cases in a proportionality review.
On Monday, Martin told the justices that they would not have to conduct a proportionality review if the court orders a new trial on grounds that Barrett's lawyers did such a poor job. But Martin challenged the court to find a case similar to Barrett's if it does conduct such a review.
Death sentences were imposed in two similar cases involving John Wayne Conner in Telfair County and David Aaron Perkins in Clayton County, Hurst told the justices.
Conner killed his friend J.T. White in 1982 after both men had been drinking and smoking marijuana and after White told Conner he wanted to go to bed with Conner's girlfriend. Conner beat White with a quart-sized liquor bottle and a stick and left him in a drainage ditch, where he drowned in his own blood. After a night of heavy drinking, Perkins, of Riverdale, killed Herbert Ryals III in 1994 by stabbing him and smashing him with a whiskey bottle. He also stole Ryals' wallet.
Nahmias told Hurst that the state Supreme Court had overturned Perkins' death sentence in 2011 because his lawyers failed to thoroughly investigate his troubled background for mitigation evidence during the sentencing phase of the trial.
Perkins is still pursuing his state court appeals and has yet to be re-sentenced. Conner's appeals are still pending in federal court.
About the Author
