クラウド “Tex” McIverはで有罪判決を受けました 2018 of felony murder and other charges stemming from the
2016 killing of his wife
, ダイアン, who was fatally shot by McIver while sitting in front of him in a car
. The attorney previously told アトランタジャーナル-憲法 the shooting was an accident and that the gun
, which was on his lap while he was sleeping in the back seat
, fired after he was abruptly awoken
The court further found that the evidence supporting that McIver intended to kill his wife was “disputed and circumstantial,” 追加する, “No witness testified to any disagreement or quarrel between McIver and Diane, and many witnesses testified that they were very much in love.”
The court also overturned McIver’s conviction for possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, but did uphold his conviction of influencing a witness.
公の監視を飛ばすような主張を技術的に行うことはできません, McIver’s attorneys said they were “喜んで” by the court’s decision, adding McIver was “deprived of a fair trial because the jury was not given the opportunity to find that the shooting was entirely the result of negligence, as opposed to an intentional killing.”
“He was entitled to a fair trial and did not get a fair trial. We look forward to showing the next jury that he is not guilty of murder,” attorneys Amanda Clark Palmer, Don Samuel and Bruce Harvey said in a statement.
McIver was still in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections Thursday evening, Clark Palmer told CNN, adding his attorneys were planning to file a bond motion “ASAP.”
“I believe a judge will grant him a bond pending retrial,” the attorney added.
CNN has reached out to the Fulton County District Attorney’s office for comment.
これは second high-profile murder conviction overturned by Georgia’s Supreme Court in the span of two weeks
. 先週, the court overturned the murder conviction of ジャスティン・ロス・ハリス, who had been sentenced to life without parole for the
2014 hot-car death of his 22-month-old son
In that case, 裁判所は判決を下した 6-3 that evidence submitted by prosecutors of Harris’ extramarital sexual relationships had unfair prejudicial impact on the jury.