On Sunday, May 10, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published an article by Bill Torpy that raises troubling questions about what is going on in Atlanta’s courtrooms. Like this April 10 story by Steve Visser, Torpy’s story focuses on an element of the justice system that receives less attention than policing but is arguably far more responsible for the presence of dangerous felons on Atlanta’s streets: the choices, both legal and administrative, made by Atlanta’s judges.
We invest judges with extraordinary power. We allow judicial discretion in all sorts of sentencing and administrative decisions. Legislators have tried to limit judges’ discretion in recent years by imposing minimum mandatory sentence guidelines and repeat offender laws. But Georgia’s sentencing guidelines still give judges far too much latitude to let criminals go free. Also, far too many judges have responded to this legislative oversight (aka, the will of the people) by simply ignoring the intent, and even the letter, of those laws.
Not long ago, I was sitting in a Tampa courtroom listening to a request to overturn a particularly egregious lapse in judicial discretion in the case of Richard Chotiner. Chotiner is a former nurse who used his status as a caregiver to sexually assault a developmentally disabled young man. He was convicted of the crime and sentenced to fifteen years behind bars. Then the judge let him go, to wait out his appeals as a free man. To say that this decision was unusual is an understatement; nonetheless, facing criticism, the judge dug in. Next, he allowed Chotiner to remove his ankle monitor on some trumped-up claim of needing to undergo physical therapy, and then refused to require Chotiner to put the monitor back on after the “therapy” was completed. It’s hard to see the judge’s decision to remove the ankle monitor as anything other than a petulant reaction to being criticized in the first place.
In other words, this judge decided that his ego was more important than the victim’s peace of mind, public safety, or justice itself. And when another judge was called upon to re-evaluate the first judge’s lack of judgment, Judge Number Two said that while he would not have let Chotiner go, he certainly was not going to second-guess the brillant legal mind of his esteemed colleague, etc. etc. etc.
Chotiner is still on the loose, though Judge Number Two actually did second-guess Judge Number One’s decision to remove his ankle monitor and ordered it put back on. I suppose we weren’t supposed to notice that logical inconsistency while swooning in abject gratitude that one of these Apollonian deities had deigned to throw a few scraps the victim’s way.
Now, thanks to Bill Torpy’s article, Atlantans can watch a similar Olympian battle of wills not unfold in the Fulton Superior Court. Expect other judges not to act to rein in the behavior of Judge Marvin Arrington, who once again completely forgot that he isn’t yet presiding over a fake television courtroom. Expect the chief justice to not speak out in the face of yet another miscarriage of justice, and to not look into the chain of events that put yet another attempted murderer back on Atlanta’s streets. They are, after all, judges. The rest of us should mind our place.
This time, Arrington released a violent criminal who shot a fellow Morehouse student three times with a handgun. He then treated the court to another episode of what goes on in his mind, saying:
[The attempted murderer] needs to have a curfew. He needs to be in a dorm where you can get some study time. Take organic chemistry and physics. Make him some A’s . . . All of them got cars. Don’t need no dern car. They need a MARTA card.”
Let me attempt to summarize. If you have repeatedly shot a person with a handgun, what you need to do is not go to jail, but study more and take public transportation. That should fix it.
Just like the judge who wouldn’t judge another judge in Tampa, Arrington did feign some harsh words for the defense. He actually cut the defense attorney off in mid-sentence (!), declaring:
“No more excuses. He doesn’t have any reason to give for not being successful.
“Where is the mama?
“Better put your arms around him and make sure he goes in the right direction. If he comes back here, I’m going to put him in jail. J-A-I-L.”
Then, after spelling out the word J-A-I-L in harsh tones for emphasis, Arrington let Joshua Brandon Norris go free.
OK, I’m not being completely fair to Marvin Arrington. As Torpy’s article explains, an inexperienced prosecutor, and thus the prosecutor’s boss, D.A. Paul Howard, agreed to the crazy plea deal in this case (Allowing a plea in a case of attempted murder means that the sentencing law needs to be changed. Or, conversely, enforced, with penalties accruing to judges who fail to follow the law). But regardless of the prosecutor’s actions, it is still Arrington’s courtroom.
Of course, there were reports of other crimes by Norris. Serious ones. Like, gun stuff. Like grinding a bar glass into a girlfriend’s face. Such things are apparently meaningless, however, in the halls of the bizarro-world of the Fulton Superior Court, where shooting somebody gets you sent to study hall, and aiming a gun at two women gets you — well, nothing. Here is Torpy’s article. I’ve quoted from it extensively because it is important — please go to the website and read the whole thing:
Tale of two students with a twist
Shooting victim won’t be Morehouse Man, but suspect to earn degree.
By Bill Torpy
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, May 10, 2009Joshua Brandon Norris is expected to graduate soon and become a Morehouse Man, with all its prestige. At 22, he’s had a good run during his time at Morehouse College. He drove a Hummer, co-owned a fashion store at Perimeter Mall and owns a stylish $450,000 townhouse.
He also shot another student.
Quite a lifestyle for someone whose dad is a cop in Nashville (see below). That must be some clothing store.
Across the country, Frank Rashad Johnson, the victim, attends Sacramento City College and lives with his mother, trying to save money. He, too, wanted to be a Morehouse Man.
“My great-uncle was a classmate of Martin Luther King’s,” Johnson said. “It has a long history of exemplary students and good men. It was my dream school.”
But all that fell apart when he was shot three times outside a school-related Halloween party near Atlantic Station in 2007. Police reports say Norris was kicked out of a nightclub, had words with Johnson after bumping into him outside, then shot the fellow Morehouse student during a struggle in the street.
Pause on this for a moment. One shot, two shots, three shots, six shots in all. In a public place.
Completing a Morehouse degree is vital to Norris. Fulton County Judge Marvin Arrington ordered him to do so after he pleaded no contest to a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The deal calls for six years of probation and comes with first-offender status —- meaning Norris’ record will be wiped clean if he stays out of trouble.
“You’re getting the break of your life,” Arrington said during the Jan. 27 hearing.
Arrington was accepting a plea offered by the prosecution and the defense. But he could have done any one of a number of things. Instead, he went off on his routine about staying in school, as if the situation were somehow not real, a pantomine, or an after-school special. It’s crazy, how the courts have been hijacked by this type of foolishness.
The arrangement constitutes a bizarre twist of fate for Johnson.
“I sit at home, still recovering from my wound, painfully aware my Morehouse dreams have become a nightmare,” Johnson wrote to Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard after hearing about the deal. “My victimizer (and almost murderer) received a closeted, secretive, back-door slap on the wrist and is now back at Morehouse, moving forward with his educational aspirations without having paid any price for his crime.”
This is the person who is not at Morehouse. The president of Morehouse chose an attempted murderer over this young man, the victim of his crime. Nice message to send, President Franklin.
[District Attorney Paul] Howard recently investigated how the case was handled after receiving questions from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “I am uncomfortable with the quality of the prosecutorial services provided … in this matter,” Howard wrote the family. Reid Thompson, the prosecutor who cut the deal, resigned.
Howard surely must have approved the plea deal. And so, this must be routine. If the public cannot count on its prosecutors to demand justice, then they have no protection against violent criminals.
The case is an example of how a relatively new prosecutor got caught up in Arrington’s crusade to save young black men. Of an overworked department dealing with a hard-charging defense attorney. Of a victim not getting his just due in court. And, says Johnson’s family, of a young man once again escaping serious criminal charges.
I’d like to know more about how Arrington’s crusade to save young black men ended up with someone who tried to kill a young black man receiving a get-out-of-jail-free card for a serious, violent felony, while the actually endangered young black man who didn’t try to kill anybody got the shaft.
And nearly killed. But it gets worse.
The deal came after Thompson, a former Fulton police lieutenant who became an attorney in 2005, heard Arrington’s up-by-your bootstraps message in court weeks earlier, according to a transcript of the hearing. Last year, Arrington removed whites from his courtroom to lecture black defendants on proper behavior.
“We’ve got this young man who’s coming back to Morehouse now, he’s close to graduation,” Thompson told Arrington. “Sending him to state prison for two years, I don’t think that would be in the state’s best interest. Hopefully, this will be the lesson he needs.”
This is the prosecutor speaking. That’s insane. He resigned? He should return his salary. But I imagine there will be a reward system in place for him in academia somewhere. And why, precisely, was the choice between two years in prison or no time at all? This was attempted murder, firing a weapon in a public place. The Code of Georgia does not allow for “attainment of a college degree” as punishment for this crime:
Georgia Code, 16-5-21
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or
(3) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.
(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (i) of this Code section, [not applicable] a person convicted of the offense of aggravated assault shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
Can anyone explain to me how it is that Judge Arrington, and D.A. Paul Howard, agreed to quietly circumvent this law? Why aren’t they resigning? It really is time for new blood at the D.A.’s office.
[The victim, Frank Rashad] Johnson complains his voice remained silent during the hearing. Actually, not only was his voice absent, but a version opposite of what police reports said happened that night was presented. In the hearing, [Prosecutor] Thompson said [victim] Johnson was kicked out of the nightclub before a fight started outside. And the defense attorney picked up from there, telling the judge Johnson and his friends surrounded his client’s Hummer and threatened him.
But several police reports in the court file say it was Norris who was kicked out of the party, one that Johnson never entered. And the reports say Norris returned to his vehicle after arguing with Johnson, then drove back, slammed on his brakes and got out with a gun.
The prosecutor makes the defense’s case, contradicting police reports.
Meanwhile, back in the victim’s world:
Johnson said prosecutors repeatedly told him they were up against a “prestigious” attorney. “I think they were intimidated by him,” he said. “It infuriates me I was never able to give anyone my sense of outrage or my story.”
Here are the details of the crime. I also doubt it’s the only such case in the Fulton courts. If you’re searching for the reason why innocent people keep getting killed in Atlanta, here it is:
According to police reports, witnesses said the events of Oct. 31, 2007, unfolded this way:
Norris and his girlfriend were escorted out of a Halloween party at LITKitchen. Norris bumped into Johnson, who was waiting outside. The two exchanged words and Norris walked to his Hummer, drove back and screeched to a halt —- a point nearly every witness mentioned.
Witnesses said Norris jumped out and pushed the gun at Johnson’s face. Johnson struggled with Norris as he fired at least six shots. Three bullets hit Johnson in the leg. Norris fled.
Norris turned himself in a week later after conferring with a lawyer and was released on bond.
Norris’ identity was known. Why did it take a week to get him? Was he hiding? Was his father, a Nashville cop, involved in hiding him? And since he was on the run for a week, why the hell did a judge let him free on bond, instead of holding him to make sure he didn’t run again?
Who, precisely, let Norris bond out? To do this:
Eight months passed, and then last summer, Fulton prosecutors moved to revoke Norris’ bond after learning he was accused of smashing a glass in his ex-girlfriend’s face at a Nashville bar. She received severe cuts in her forehead requiring eight inches of stitches, police reports said.
The victim’s aunt, Kelly Carr, told police “when she went to the ER her niece told her Brandon had done this to me.” The aunt also said, “the victim is scared of the suspect because he is out on bond for attempted homicide” and Norris’ stepfather, Daniel Turner, a Nashville cop, “pulled her from the room and said his son, wanted to see/speak with [the victim].”
An officer reported this to internal affairs, which investigated and cleared Turner. The victim was “completely uncooperative,” Nashville police reported.
The victim was scared out of her mind. And why not? It’s not as if anybody was protecting her. Only people like Norris get protection from this system. Victims learn to shut up.
During Norris’ bond revocation hearing in Fulton last August, the woman testified she was cut when a fight broke out in the Nashville bar while she walked toward Norris’ table. He was cut in the hand in the same fight, according to testimony. Prosecutors later dropped the matter.
Which prosecutor dropped the matter? What is happening in Paul Howard’s office? The scariest part is that this level of dysfunction cannot be unique.
How many Joshua Brandon Norrises are walking Atlanta’s streets? Why isn’t Paul Howard screaming from the rooftops for more resources, if things have gotten so bad that he does not ever try to put attempted murderers away? Why isn’t the Mayor helping him? Why isn’t the Chief of Police? Why aren’t they standing in the city council, and the county commission, and the state legislature, every single day, pleading for the resources to keep killers off the streets?
But in the end, the decision gets made by the sitting judge: Marvin Arrington. And then his peers do what judges do when other judges fail to enforce the law: they do nothing.
Of course, there’s more:
In another case in Fulton court files, Clark Atlanta University students Britteny Turman and Grace Dixon say Norris pulled a gun on them during a traffic dispute near Morehouse in November 2005. The women, in recent interviews, said Norris screamed profanities and followed them in their car for several blocks.
“He was laughing like it was funny when [he waved his gun and] we both ducked,” Turman said.
“I don’t understand why he didn’t get kicked out of Morehouse,” Dixon said. “He shouldn’t have been there to do this to somebody else.”
The two say they heard no follow-up from Fulton solicitors. Morehouse officials declined to answer questions about Norris.
In fairness, Marvin Arrington never said anything about saving young women.
Asked about Norris’ plea deal in the shooting, Arrington said he has “close to 100 cases a week” and doesn’t remember it. But he recalled the Nashville assault case when Norris came before him during the plea hearing.
“This is the young man who was whipping a young lady?” the judge asked.
Then he let him go. Told ’em to study hard.
Johnson [the shooting victim] last month got a letter from Morehouse President Robert M. Franklin after the Johnson family repeatedly contacted the college after the plea deal.
Franklin suggested Johnson return. “Your matriculation would be a wonderful triumph over adversity,” he wrote.
Johnson aspired to becoming a Morehouse Man, as have three generations of relatives. But he has soured on that.
“Honestly, I don’t want to do that; I don’t feel safe there,” he said. “The situation is all backward to me.”
Is anything stopping Paul Howard from prosecuting Norris for his armed attack on Britteny Turman and Grace Dixon?
When the judge in Tampa let Richard Chotiner walk away from a sexual assault conviction, television host Bill O’Reilly stepped in to protest Chotiner’s release. I hope that O’Reilly would be similarly interested in the release of Joshua Brandon Norris, and the grotesquely raw deal delivered to his victims, Britteny Turman, Grace Dixon, and Frank Rashad Johnson. They have a right to justice.
You and others interested in the sentencing may be interested in the official transcript of the negotiated plea hearing referenced in your post.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
4 STATE OF GEORGIA
5
VS.
6
7 JOSHUA NORRIS,
8
9
10
11
12
INDICTMENT
NO. 07SC62303
Original
13 BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARVIN ARRINGTON, SR., JUDGE
14 FULTON CbUNTY JUSTICE CENTER TOWER – COURTROOM 5A
15 FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009.
18 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
19 FOR THE STATE:
20 FOR THE DEFENDANT:
21
22
23
24
25
MR. REID THOMPSON
MR. BRIAN STEEL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW
LAURA M. HARRIS
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
FULTON COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER TOWER
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30302
(404) 730—6916
1
2
3
DEFENDANT
PLEA
16
17
1
0 0
‘1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 MR. THOMPSON: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS
3 POSITION NO. 2 ON YOUR JANUARY 27TH, 2009,
4 PLEA AND ARRAIGNMENT CALENDAR. IT’S CASE
5 075C62303, THE STATE OF GEORGIA VERSUS
6 MR. JOSHUA NORRIS.
7 SIR, ARE YOU MR. JOSHUA NORRIS?
8 THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.
9 MR. THOMPSON: MR. NORRIS, COULD YOU
10 RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
11 MR. NORRIS, DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR
12 AND/OR AFFIRM THAT ANY TESTIMONY YOU
13 PROVIDE THE COURT THIS AFTERNOON WILL BE
14 THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT
15 THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?
16 THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.
17 MR. THOMPSON: YOU CAN PUT YOUR HAND
18 DOWN, SIR.
19 JOSHUA NORRIS,
20 THE DEFENDANT, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, WAS
21 EXAMINED AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
22 EXAMINATION
23 QUESTIONS BY MR. THOMPSON:
• 24 Q. MR. NORRIS, ARE YOU REPRESENTED TODAY BY
25 YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. BRIAN STEEL, WHO IS STANDING HERE
2
0
a
1 NEXT TO YOU?
2 A. YES, SIR.
3 Q. MR. NORRIS, I’M HOLDING UP THE ORIGINAL
4 INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE HERE I~N FRONT OF YOU. YOU
5 WILL NOTICE THAT IN INDICTMENT 07SC62303 THERE ARE
6 TWO CHARGES ON THIS INDICTMENT. THE FIRST CHARGE IS
7 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.
8 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
9 WITH A DEADLY WEAPON IS A FELONY OFFENSE AND IT’S
10 PUNISHABLE BY FROM ONE TO 20 YEARS IN JAIL?
11 A. YES.
12 Q. COUNT 2 OF THIS INDICTMENT IS POSSESSION OF
13 A FIREARM, DURING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY. DO YOU
14 UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS ALSO A FELONY AND BY LAW THAT
15 OFFENSE IS PUNISHABLE BUT BY UP TO FIVE YEARS IN
16 PRISON AND BY LAW THAT MUST RUN CONSECUTIVELY OR
17 END-TO—END AT ANY OTRER TIME YOU’RE SENTENCED.
18 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
19 A. YES, SIR.
20 Q. NOW, MR. NORRIS, THROUGH YOUR ATTORNEY,
21 MR. STEEL, WE HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT AS A WAY TO
22 RESOLVE THIS CASE, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A TRIAL.
23 WHAT WE’VE AGREED IS THAT YOU WILL BE PLEADING TO
24 COUNT 1 OF THIS INDICTMENT, ONLY. WE WILL BE NOLLE
25 PROSSING OR DISMISSING COUNT 2 OF THIS INDICTMENT.
C) C)
1 AND, AS FAR AS COUNT 1, AND WHAT WE WILL BE
2 RECOMMENDING TO THE COURT, THIS WILL BE A PLEA AS A
3 FIRST OFFENDER, YOU WILL BE PLEADING A NOLO
4 CONTENDERE TO COUNT 1 OF THIS INDICTMENT. THAT MEANS
5 THAT YOU DO NOT CONTEST THE CHARGE. YOU ARE ALSO
6 ENTERING THIS PLEA UNDER SOMETHING THAT’S REFERRED TO
7 AS AN ALFORD PLEA. THAT’S REFERRING BACK TO THE CASE
8 ALFORD VERSUS NORTH CAROLINA. WE’LL GO INTO THAT IN
9 A MINUTE, AS WELL.
10 WE’RE GOING TO RECOMMEND TO THE JUDGE THAT
11 YOU BE SENTENCED TO SIX YEARS OF PROBATION, YOU ARE
12 TO PAY A $1,000 FINE, YOU ARE TO COMPLETE 240 HOURS
13 OF COMMUNITY SERVICE, AND YOU ARE TO REMAIN IN
14 COLLEGE AND COMPLETE YOUR COLLEGE DEGREE.
15 IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF OUR AGREEMENT
16 AND WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION WILL BE?
17 A. YES, SIR.
18 Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE JUDGE IS NOT
19 REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THIS RECOMMENDATION, L’M MAKING TO
20 HIM?
21 A. YES, SIR.
22 Q. I’M HOLDING UP ANOTHER FORM IN FRONT OF YOU
23 THAT’S TITLED PLEA OF GUILTY. DID YOUR — ACTUALLY,
24 IT’S BEEN MARKED OUT. IT’S PLEA OF NOLO CONrENDERE.
25 DID YOUR ATTORNEY GO OVER THIS FORM WITH
4
C) C)
1 YOU?
2 A. YES, SIR.
3 Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE INFORMATION ON
4 THE FRONT AND REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM?
5 A. YES, SIR.
6 Q. AND IS THIS YOUR SIGNATURE, I’M POINTING TO
7 ON THE REVERSE SIDE?
8 A. YES, SIR.
9 Q. MR. NORRIS, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE
10 THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY A JURY, IN THIS CASE, YOU
11 HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT, IN THIS
12 MATTER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT AGAINST
13 SELF-INCRIMINATION, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT OR
14 QUESTION ANY OF THE WITNESSES THAT THE STATE MIGHT
15 CALL TO TESTIFY, SHOULD THIS CASE PROCEED TO A TRIAL.
16 YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND
17 TESTIFY, IN YOUR OWN BEHALF, AND PRESENT OTHER
18 EVIDENCE, SHOULD THIS CASE PROCEED TO A TRIAL, BUT
19 YOU WAIVE OR GIVE UP ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS, WHEN YOU
20 PLEAD GUILTY.
21 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
22 A. YES, SIR.
23 Q. NOW, THIS IS BEING ENTERED UNDER ALFORD
24 VERSUS NORTH CAROLINA. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IF THIS
25 CASE PROCEEDED TO A TRIAL THAT THERE IS A CHANCE OR
5
0 0
1 EVEN A LIKELIHOOD THAT A JURY MIGHT FIND YOU GUILTY
2 AND, THEREFORE, YOU ARE ENTERING THIS PLEA BECAUSE
3 YOU BELIEVE IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST?
4 A. YES, SIR.
5 Q. YOU ARE ALSO REQUESTING TO BE SENTENCED AS
6 A FIRST OFFENDER. DID YOUR ATTORNEY EXPLAIN TO YOU
7 THE BENEFITS AND THE DRAWBACKS OF PLEADING, AS A
8 FIRST OFFENDER?
9 •A. YES, SIR.
10 Q. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU ARE ABLE TO
11 COMPLETE YOUR PROBATIONARY PERIOD, WITHOUT BEING
12 BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THIS COURT, FOR ANY REASON, OR
13 BEING FOUND IN VIOLATION OF YOUR PROBATION, YOU COULD
14 MOVE FOR A DISMISSAL, NOT — CORRECTION, NOT A
15 • DISMISSAL, BUT A FIRST OFFENDER DISCHARGE OF THIS
16 CASE AND YOU WOULD, TECHNICALLY, IN A VERY REAL
17 SENSE, NOT BE CONVICTED OF A FELONY OFFENSE.
18 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
19 A. YES, SIR.
20 Q. BUT IF YOU ARE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THIS
21 COURT AND YOU ARE FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED YOUR
22 PROBATION, THIS VERY SAME JUDGE COULD, AFTER A RATHER
23 SHORT HEARING, RESENTENCE YOU TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED
24 BY LAW, FOR THIS OFFENSE.
25 • DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
6
7)
1 A. YES.
2 Q. SO IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THAT FOR THIS
3 PROBATIONARY PERIOD, YOU DO NOTHING TO VIOLATE YOUR
4 PROBATION?
5 A. YES.
6 Q. OKAY. LET’S SEE. HAVE I GOTTEN
7 EVERYTHING? I THINK SO.
8 ALL RIGHT. MR. NORRIS, THEN, WITH ALL OF
9 THAT IN MIND AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU ARE
10 PLEADING NOLO CONTENDERE AND UNDER ALFORD VERSUS
11 NORTH CAROLINA, HOW DO YOU PLEAD TO COUNT 1 OF THIS
12 INDICTMENT, GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY?
13 MR. STEEL: OR NOLO CONTENDERE?
14 Q (BY MR. THOMPSON) OR NOLO.
15 A. NOLO CONTENDERE.
16 Q. ARE YOU ENTERING THIS PLEA FREELY AND
17 VOLUNTARILY?
18 A. YES, SIR.
19 Q. HAS ANYONE OFFERED YOU ANYTHING OR
20 THREATENED YOU IN ANY WAY TO FORCE YOU TO PLEAD NOLO
21 CONTENDERE THIS AFTERNOON?
22 A. NO, SIR.
23 MR. THOMPSON: AND, MR. STEEL, DO YOU
24 BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN ADEQUATE LEGAL AND
25 FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE CHARGE AGAINST YOUR
7
0 0
1 CLIENT AND THAT IT IS IN HIS BEST INTEREST
2 TO PLEAD NOLO CONTENDERE?
3 MR. STEEL: YES, SIR.
4 MR. THOMPSON: YOUR HONOR, THE STATE
5 TENDERS THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE PLEA OF
6 GUILTY FORM.
7 AS FOR A FACTUAL BASIS, YOUR HONOR,
8 BACK ON OCTOBER THE 31ST OF 2007, ATLANTA
9 POLICE RESPONDED OUT TO 433 BISHOP STREET,
10 THAT’S HERE IN THE CITY OF ATLANTA, IN
11 FULTON COUNTY, TO A NIGHTCLUB OVER IN THE
12 ATLANTA STATION AREA OF ATLANTA.
13 THE DETECTIVE AND OTHER OFFICERS SPOKE
14 TO WITNESSES AND LEARNED THAT A MR. FRANK
15 JOHNSON, THE VICTIM, IN THIS CASE, HAD BEEN
16 INSIDE OF A CLUB THERE AT THAT LOCATION AND
17 HAD GOTTEN -— HE AND HIS FRIEND HAD
18 APPARENTLY GOTTEN INTO SOME TYPE OF
19 DISAGREEMENT WITH MR. NORRIS AND SOME OF
20 HIS FRIENDS. I BELIEVE THE VICTIM WAS
21 ACTUALLY ASKED TO LEAVE THE CLUB. THERE
22 MAY HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL WORDS SPOKEN JUST
23 • OUTSIDE OF THE CLUB. BUT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
24 THE CLUB AND OUT TOWARDS THE PARKING LOT,
25 MR. NORRIS PRODUCED A HANDGUN, WHERE THE
8
0 0
1 ALTERCATION CONTINUED, AND THERE WERE -— OR
2 WERE WORDS EXCHANGED, AGAIN. THERE WAS A
3 STRUGGLE OVER THE FIREARM AND THE FIREARM
4 WENT OFF, STRIKING THE VICTIM IN THE CALF.
5 MR. NORRIS DID FLEE FROM THE SCENE.
6 • BUT AFTER CONFERRING WITH HIS ATTORNEY, HE
7 DID TURN HIMSELF IN, SOMEWHAT LATER.
8 AS FAR AS THE RECOMMENDATION, THAT’S
9 GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION OF SIX-YEARS
10 PROBATION, A THOUSAND-DOLLAR FINE, 240
11 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE. HE IS TO
12 REMAIN IN AND COMPLETE COLLEGE. MY
13 RECOMMENDATION UP UNTIL —
14 THE COURT: WHERE IS HE IN COLLEGE?
15 • MR. THOMPSON: YES, SIR.
16 • THE COURT: WHEREABOUT?
17 MR. THOMPSON: HE’S RETURNING TO
18 MOREHOUSE. HE HAD — HE HAD BEEN IN
19 MOREHOUSE, PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. AFTER
20 THE INCIDENT, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING HE WAS
21 ASKED TO LEAVE. HE THEN ENROLLED IN
22 TENNESSEE STATE AND HAS NOW BEEN ACCEPTED
23 BACK TO MOREHOUSE AND WILL BE COMING BACK
24 DOWN.
25 THE COURT: THIS IS THE YOUNG MAN WAS
9
0 • C)
“
1 WHIPPING A YOUNG LADY?
2 MR. THOMPSON: YES, SIR.
3 THE COURT: THAT CAME BEFORE ME SOME
4 WEEKS AGO?
5 MR. THOMPSON: THIS WAS A TRANSFER
6 FROM JUDGE WESTMORELAND.
7 MR. STEEL: YOUR HONOR, WE CAME BEFORE
8 YOUR COURT. THE STATE FILED A MOTION TO
9 REVOKE THE BOND OF MR. NORRIS. WE APPEARED
10 • BEFORE YOUR COURT. THE STATE THEN ASKED
11 FOR A CONTINUANCE. I HAD BROUGHT ALL THE
12 WITNESSES FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE TO
13 YOUR COURT. YOU HEARD PROBABLY FIVE-OR-SIX
14 WITNESSES THAT MR. NORRIS IN NO WAY, SHAPE
15 OR FORM, OTHER THEN BEING PRESENT IN AN
16 AREA, WAS INVOLVED WITH A YOUNG LADY
17 GETTING INJURED. SHE GOT CUT WITH A GLASS.
18 IT WAS A FIGHT. AND AFTER THE COURT HEARD
19 ALL OF THAT, THE STATE, THEN, STATED —
20 ASKED FOR TWO WEEKS TO GET A VIDEOTAPE.
21 THEY PROMISED TO GET ME THE VIDEOTAPE,
22 PRIOR TO YOUR NEXT HEARING. AND THEN THE
23 STATE CALLED ME AND SAID THEY DON’T HAVE
24 • ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, THEY ARE WAIVING THEIR
25 MOTION, BEFORE YOUR COURT. SO YOU DID HEAR
10
0 C)
1 FROM PEOPLE, WHO ARE ALL ATTENDING
2 COLLEGES — OR COLLEGE.
3 THE COURT: YEAH. HOW DID YOU SAY IT
4 WAS WESTMORELAND?
5 MR. THOMPSON: WELL, IT ORIGINATED IN
6 JUDGE WESTMORELAND. IT CAME OVER WITH THE
7 OTHER CASES. IT WAS ACTUALLY THE ASSISTANT
8 D.A. FROM JUDGE WESTMORELAND WHO CAME OVER
9 FOR THAT HEARING, MS. TAMMY FULLER.
10 MY OFFER, UP UNTIL ABOUT TWO WEEKS
11 AGO, FOR THE CASE, WAS ALWAYS PRISON TIME
12 UNTIL -— AND, AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU
13 MENTIONED THE LAST TRIAL WE HAD IN HERE.
14 UNTIL ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, I WAS SITTING
15 HERE, WAITING FOR THE JURY TO COME OUT.
16 AND THEN ACTUALLY IT WAS SOMETHING YOU,
17 ALSO, SAID, WHEN YOU WERE SENTENCING THE
18 TWO YOUNG MEN, AS WELL. BUT I’M SITTING
19 HERE, WITH MS. MILLER, WHO WAS LEAD COUNSEL
20 OR LEAD PROSECUTOR, ON THAT CASE, AND WE
21 WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE. AND SHE
22 MENTIONED HOW IF IT WERE HER, SHE MIGHT BE
23 INCLINED TOWARDS PROBATION. BECAUSE HE’S A
24 YOUNG MAN, HE’S IN SCHOOL, HOPEFULLY, THIS
25 WILL BE A GREAT LIFE LESSON, AND —
11
0 C)
k
1 THE COURT: YOUNG MAN, COME HERE?
2 THE DEFENDANT: ME?
3 THE COURT: YEAH.
4 YOU DON’T NEEIJ TO COME, COUNSEL. YOU
5 DON’T WANT TO HEAR IT.
6 YOU WANT TO HEAR IT?
7 MR. STEEL: SURE, IF I MAY.
8 THE COURT: I’M NOT SURE YOU WANT TO
9 HEAR IT.
10 (DISCUSSION AT THE BENCH BETWEEN THE
11 COURT AND THE DEFENDANT OUT OF THE
12 HEARING OF THE COURT REPORTER.)
13 MR. THOMPSON: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD
14 JUST SAY ONE MORE THING. THERE’S SOMETHING
15 YOU SAID, WHILE YOU WERE SENTENCING THOSE
16 TWO YOUNG MEN.
17 . • TI~1E:COURT: WHAT DID I SAY? BECAUSE
18 SOMETIMES I GO CRAZY.
19 • MR. THOMPSON: YOU MENTIONED THAT
20 THERE WAS ONE YOUNG MAN THAT HAD BEEN
21 KILLED AND WAS DEAD. BUT YOU WERE
22 ADDRESSING THOSE TWO YOUNG MEN AND YOU
23 SAID, IN ESSENCE, YOU’VE ENDED THREE LIVES,
24 NOW, BECAUSE YOU’RE GOING TO PRISON FOR 30
25 YEARS. SO WE’VE GOT A YOUNG MAN, WHO’S
12
0 C)
1 COMING BACK TO MOREHOUSE, NOW, HE’S CLOSE
2 TO GRADUATING. SNATCHING HIM RIGHT NOW AND
3 SENDING HIM TO STATE PRISON, FOR TWO YEARS,
4 I DON’T THINK IT WOULD BE IN THE STATE’S
5 BEST INTEREST. HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL BE THE
6 LESSON HE NEEDS AND HE STAYS AWA? FROM THIS
7 • KIND OF STUFF FROM NOW ON.
8 THE COURT: WE HAVE COME TO A POINT IN
9 THIS COUNTRY THAT I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD
10 LIVE TO SEE IN MY LIFETIME, AN
11 AFRO-AMERICAN BECOMING THE PRESIDENT TO THE
12 UNITED STATES WHO IS BRIGHT, QUICK, TRYING
13 TO GET ISSUES REVOLVED. AND YOU NEED ——
14 AND HE NEEDS TO BE IN SOME TYPE OF ~A
15 PROGRAM WORKING WITH YOUNG PEOPLE.
16 WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT, CATHY,
17 COMMUNITY SERVICE?
18 THE STAFF ATTORNEY: BIG SISTER AND
19 BIG BROTHER?
20 MR. THOMPSON: THERE’S 240 HOURS OF
21 COMMUNITY SERVICE, AS PART OF THE PLEA,
22 YOUR HONOR.
23 THE COURT: NOW, MIZELL, I WANT YOU TO
24 FIND A CONSTRUCTIVE PROGRAM FOR THIS YOUNG
25 MAN. I DON’T WANT NO —
13
0 C)
1 MR. MIZELL: THAT WON’T BE POSSIBLE
2 WITH THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
3 YOUR HONOR.
4 THE COURT: WHY?
5 MR. MIZELL: HE HAS TO DO THE
6 COMMUNITY SERVICE THAT’S DIRECTED BY THE
7 GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. I
8 HAD -— THEY HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH PEOPLE
9 DOING OTHER THINGS, OTHER THEN WHAT THE
10 DEPARTMENT MANDATES.
11 THE COURT: WHAT DO THEY MANDATE IN
12 THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE?
13 MR. MIZELL: HE WOULD DO IT, ACCORDING
14 TO THE -— WHAT WE HAVE SET UP, NOW. AND
15 THAT’S THEY PICK UP PAPER, THEY WORK IN
16 SALVAGE PLACES, BASICALLY. ALTHOUGH, THERE
17 HAVE BEEN INSTANCES —
18 MR. THOMPSON: I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO
19 REQUEST AND HIS LAWYER SEE IF WE CAN GET
20 HIM OUT TO THE CAREY STEEL PITTS HOME THAT
21 IS WORKING WITH YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DO NOT
22 HAVE PARENTS. IT’S A FACILITY WHERE THEY
23 CAN LIVE ON SITE AND THEY EAT THREE SQUARES
24 A DAY. NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT OF THEM GO ON
25 TO COLLEGE. THE DIRECTOR IS A GRADUATE OF
14
0 1)
1 THAT SCHOOL. SHE IS 78, NOW. SHE IS A
2 GRADUATE OF SPELMAN COLLEGE AND M.S.W.,
3 FROM ATLANTA UNIVERSITY.
4 SOCIAL WORK, IT’S A GREAT PROGRAM. IT
5 HELPS SOMEBODY WITH SOME MATH, SOME READING
6 SKILLS AND SOMETHING ELSE.
7 I DON’T NEED NOBODY OUT THERE PICKING
8 UP SOME PAPER. MIZELL, YOU AND I CAN DO
9 THAT ON SATURDAYS, PICK UP SOME PAPER. BUT
10 I’D LIKE TO — WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF YOUR
11 PROGRAM, YOUR YOUTH PROGRAM?
12 MR. MIZELL: I BELIEVE THE PROGRAM,
13 THE REGIONAL CIRCUIT TEAM, IS SHIRLEY
14 GRIGGS.
15 THE COURT: WHERE IS SHE LOCATED?
16 MR. MIZELL: SHE IS LOCATED IN THIS
17 BUILDING.
18 THE COURT: WHERE?
19 MR. MIZELL: IN THIS BUILDING.
20 THE COURT REPORTER: WHAT IS HER NAME?
21 MR. MIZELL: SHIRLEY GRIGGS.
22 THE COURT: YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE I
23 CAN GET HER UP HERE? YOU ACT LIKE YOU’RE
24 SCARED?
25 MR. MIZELL: NOT LIKELY, SIR.
15
0 6)
1 • MR. THOMPSON: YEAH.
2 MR. MIZELL: NOT LIKELY.
3 THE COURT: WHY NOT?
4 MR. MIZELL: I CAN PASS THAT MESSAGE
5 ON TO HER.
6 MR. THOMPSON: HE NEEDS TO BE IN A
7 PROGRAM THAT HAS SOME SUBSTANCE, SOME MEAT.
8 WHERE ARE YOU FROM? ARE YOU FROM
9 NASHVILLE?
10 THE DEFENDANT: YES, SIR.
11 THE COURT: HE NEEDS TO HAVE A CURFEW.
12 HE NEEDS TO BE IN A DORMITORY, WHERE YOU
13 CAN GET SOME STUDY TIME. MENTION OF A
14 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY COURSE AND PHYSICS; MAKE
15 HIM MAKE A’S.
16 YOU KNOW, YOU ARE GETTING THE BREAK OF
17 YOUR LIFE AND DON’T RECOGNIZE IT.
18 • YEAH, I WILL ACCEPT IT.
19 • • MIZELL, I’M NOT SCARED OF MRS. GRIGGS.
20 I’LL GO SEE HER, YOU KNOW. I’M FROM VINE
21 CITY. I’LL WALK RIGHT UP IN THAT OFFICE
22 AND TALK TO HER. I DON’T WANT YOU TO GO
23 THERE BECAUSE YOU’RE FAINT.
24 I WILL ACCEPT IT.
25 • MR. THOMPSON: YES, SIR. THANK YOU.
16
0 0
1 MR. STEEL: MAY I SAY ONE THING?
2 THE COURT: ARE YOU SPEAKING ON YOUR
3 BEHALF OR ARE YOU SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
4 DENNIS?
5 MR. STEEL: NO, ON MY BEHALF.
6 THE COURT: OKAY
7 MR. STEEL: ON BEHALF OF MR. NORRIS.
8 FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
9 DISTRICT ATTORNEY. WHEN WE CAME HERE
10 TODAY, IT WAS A PRISON OFFER. I HEARD WHAT
11 HE SAID, AND I WANT TO THANK HIM.
12 I, ALSO, WANT THE COURT TO KNOW THAT
13 MR. NORRIS IS AN EXTREMELY BRIGHT YOUNG
14 MAN. HE’S IMPRESSED HE, HIS MOTHER IS IN
15 • THE COURTROOM. SHE IS A VERY LOVING
16 PERSON, VERY SUPPORTIVE, BUT HE IS VERY
17 BRIGHT, HIMSELF. HE WILL FIND HIS WAY, IN
18 MY OPINION.
19 WHAT HAPPENED HERE: ON OCTOBER 31ST,
20 2007, MR. NORRIS WAS THERE AT A LOCAL
21 ESTABLISHMENT, HERE AT THE ATLANTA STATION
22 AREA. HE WAS WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND. THESE
23 OTHER PEOPLE WERE ACTING OUT. THEY WERE
24 ASKED TO LEAVE. IT WAS A GROUP OF EIGHT,
25 INCLUDING MR. JOHNSON, WHO, UNFORTUNATELY,
15
0 :1)
a *
1 IS GOING TO GET SHOT. MR. NORRIS IS FOR
2 LEAVING, WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND. THERE WAS
3 EIGHT PEOPLE YELLING. MR. NORRIS ANSWERED
4 BACK. MR. NORRIS GOT IN HIS CAR TO LEAVE.
5 AND WE FOUND THREE WITNESSES, WHO ARE
6 DETACHED FROM MR. NORRIS, WHO STATED THAT
7 EIGHT PEOPLE SURROUNDED THE VEHICLE,
8 MR. NORRIS GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE, WITH HIS
9 GUN, AND SAID: PLEASE, LEAVE ME ALONE.
10 AND HE WAS ATTACKED, AT THAT POINT, AND THE
11 GUN — THERE WAS A STRUGGLE OVER IT AND IT
12 WAS DISCHARGED. SO THAT’S WHY THERE’S AN
13 ALFORD PLEA AND A NOLO PLEA. BUT I HAVE
14 EXPLAINED ALL OF THAT TO MR. NORRIS AND HE
15 DOES WISH TO THANK THIS COURT. HE’S BEEN
16 BEFORE THIS COURT. HE’S HEARD THIS COURT.
17 AND WHATEVER WAS SAID AT THE BENCH, I KNOW,
18 WAS WISE. I WANT TO THANK THE COURT FOR
19 ACCEPTING THE PLEA.
20 ABOUT COMMUNITY SERVICE: I HAVE OTHER
21 CLIENTS, WHO ARE DOING COMMUNITY SERVICE,
22 AT WORTHWHILE PLACES. THEY ARE NOT PICKING
23 UP PAPER. I NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE, AND I
24 APPRECIATE IT. I FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT
25 IT’S TRUE. BUT I HAVE CLIENTS WHO ARE
18
C) I)
1 SENTENCED AND THE COURTS ARE SENDING THEM
2 TO THE SPINAL CENTER HERE IN ATLANTA OR THE
3 OLD AGE HOME OR ASSISTING CHILDREN TO READ.
4 AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT SOMETHING WITH
5 THE COURT ORDER CAN BE DONE FOR MR. NORRIS.
6 THE COURT: WELL, LIKE I SAID, NO MORE
7 EXCUSES. HE DOESN’T HAVE ANY REASON TO
8 GIVE AN EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING SUCCESSFUL,
9 YOU KNOW. AND I THINK THINGS HAVE CHANGED
10 OUT AT ATLANTA STATION. WHEN I WAS COMING
11 ALONG, I COULDN’T EVEN GO TO THE RAINBOW
12 AND GET A HOT DOG.
13 ALL OF THEM GOT CARS, DON’T NEED NO
14 DERN CAR. THEY NEED A M.A.R.T.A. CARD, YOU
15 KNOW.
16 WHERE IS THE MAMA?
17 MR. STEEL: SHE’S STANDING IN THE
18 CORNER.
19 THE COURT: HOW YOU DOING?
20 DEFENDANT’S MOTHER: FINE. HOW ARE
21 YOU?
22 THE COURT: YOU BETTER PUT YOUR ARMS
23 AROUND HIM AND MAKE SURE THAT HE GOES IN
24 THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IF HE VIOLATES THE
25 LAW AND COMES BACK HERE, I’M GOING TO PUT
19
0 C)
-4 ~c1
1 HIM IN JAIL, J—A-I-L.
2 ARE WE CLEAR?
3 DEFENDANT’S MOTHER: YES, SIR.
4 MR. THOMPSON: OKAY.
5 MR. STEEL: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
6 YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE EXCUSED?
7 THE COURT: YEAH. YOU DON’T WANT TO
8 SIT HERE AND WATCH US THE REST OF THE DAY?
9 I THINK REID WANTS YOU TO LEAVE.
10 MR. STEEL: BYE, YOUR HONOR.
11 THE COURT: HAVE A GREAT DAY. HAVE A
12 GREAT WEEK.
13 MR. STEEL: THANK YOU.
14 (END OF PROCEEDINGS.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 –
23
24
25
20
0 0
1 CERT I Fl CA~E
2 STATE OF GEORGIA
3 COUNTY OF FULTON
4 I, LAURA M. HARRIS, CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
5 FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT
6 PREVIOUS TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXAMINATION, THE
7 WITNESSES WERE DULY SWORN; THAT THE SAID PROCEEDINGS
8 WERE TAKEN IN MACHINE SHORTHAND BY ME AT THE TIME AND
9 PLACE AFORESAID AND WERE THEREAFTER REDUCED TO
10 TYPEWRITTEN FORM BY ME; THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE,
11 CORRECT, AND COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF SAID PROCEEDINGS.
12 I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT EMPLOYED BY,
13 RELATED TO, NOR OF COUNSEL FOR ANY OF THE PARTIES
14 HEREIN, NOR OTHERWISE INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF
15 THIS LITIGATION.
16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE AFFIXED MY
17 SIGNATURE AND SEAL THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009.
18
23 LAURA M. HARRIS, CCR—B-2365
EXPIRATION DATE: 3/31/2010
24 STATE OF GEORGIA
25
21
So the scumbag Norris not only shot Johnson, he’d earlier beaten up his girlfriend and got his stepdad – a cop – to intimidate the young lady into dropping the charge. Wow, I’m so glad my kids don’t live in Atlanta – you can get shot and YOU have to leave town while your shooter gets to party in college!
Personal Injury Lawyer
hi i am steve i want to give information about Crime Victims Media Report
Personal Injury Lawyer
Crime Victims Media Report is the good information about people