ÿWPCÇH *`øë{RŒƒs¹Ëv3“2Õㇿ¦jáã’b]a²“±)gpƒG²€×›ÐïŽÊ — ã6ÛÔÞî•Ü£Ä»b$t–{J- vÂj\ØpJKsÐHבlt¥y£áPOì>{ú7nqH%#„ÿÂí{Æ.¸+ƾ¥Ñsb ¿£Ìšïýi…AÈgrìÔÎYˆjÒb¨,¨aÏNÜ<Š“IÓ ÖFÁ*Ü ¸Ü’¥ŽÀ‚D.+äª8-Ó=À~ZKžš«,¯½Â|N+Gwš^r*»n'ø™j¾k†½6b}!ôü;} ='š²QÔÞWô"èïŽ2ô]ñ­SáöñœIžÙn·´Û“ÍNâîƒîö¨Ì¨;e°±ñ Ý°?Eä6—ì¡ç¨›¡}Æ•‹«x;ã›Ë©¬Ô¨ì*kï÷­åÃå±.U5ÉW>˜Ðo 壕4×mȳýƒÈ‚vxŒ~nç2Ö:´wü1Ú:¤¹¶tãqÓCˤ2‚¥íyz#çHÊTÇçŽä7"IªxÕ¹ûépòM¦Ó·pü–ü±©† šÊPÐZ1®ô¨é÷CÅ_"½©‰¡SÆúé-N½dÛwt]àSO–?ì>¸£mž(\í¡¶Lz_ìÔ¢úªd#!x %™n­Ÿ 04L U B€ E û  U6: wD 0cH 4« 0Ò¿ ‘   bGrb¹U:ÁûDEUU :šUNÔ_"¾9?U:xb²U+:ºU&:ô B.DK!!¬$U:Í$F%[M&¨'ò¾'m°*[,UNx0‰Æ0UNO6UN6eë6U :P9ðŠ9=z;Õ·>[Œ@çA¿éA m¨D¨D¨D¨D¨D¨D¨D¨D¨DUN¿DN E E E E E EBEU:QF^ ‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F‹F 0P—F D5çFçFçFçFçF AQGÆmG 0P3H 0DƒH˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi ;Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ#€Pÿÿd#Ñ ñÝ ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ôžÀôXX¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô³¹ ôôôžÀÔÔ‡&’ø& ôô³¹ÔAt€trial,€Wade€Bass,€another€of€defendantððs€acquaintances,€testified€that€he€hadÐ  Ðtaken€the€wallet€after€he€found€it€lying€on€the€floor€of€a€tavern€where€the€defendant€andÏGaines€had€been€drinking.€€The€wallet€contained€$300€in€cash€and€checks.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(" $Ô€X·XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó{Z='hH H ´ \H ô(‚(25¨$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XvðXXXÔÔ€ô=õXXvðÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3|x ¸Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ ôžÀôX X¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€found€the€following€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€wasÐ  Ðpreviously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies€involving€the€use€or€threat€of€violence;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[t]heÏmurder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)€and€(5)€(1982).€€These€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€wereÏredefined€in€1989€and€are€currently€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2)€and€(5)€(1998ÏSupp.). Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ ôžÀôX X¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô³¹ ôô ôžÀÔ"Whenever€the€death€penalty€is€imposed€for€first€degree€murder€and€when€the€judgmentÐ  Ðhas€become€final€in€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€of€direct€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourt€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€The€affirmance€of€the€conviction€and€the€sentence€of€deathÏshall€be€automatically€reviewed€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€the€affirmance€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€clerk€shall€docket€the€case€in€the€Supreme€Court€and€the€case€shallÏproceed€in€accordance€with€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ðð =Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ôžÀôXX¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€proof€showed€that€the€defendantððs€parents€were€out€of€the€country€in€Germany€at€theÐ  Ðtime€this€burning€allegedly€occurred.- ù-, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ñ °7 Ñ :Ý ƒ Îä$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ X¡ñXXXÔÔ€ ôžÀôX X¡ñÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ô³¹ ôô ôžÀÔTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:€ð ðPrior€to€theÐ  Ðsetting€of€oral€argument,€the€Court€shall€review€the€record€and€briefs€and€consider€òòallóó€errorsÐ ÐÈ Ðassigned.€€The€Court€may€enter€an€order€designating€those€issues€it€wishes€addressed€at€oralÏargument.ððÔ#† ôžÀô ôô³¹©#Ô ;Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ#€Pÿÿd#Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular UÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€the€òòLynnóó€decision€when€it€ruled€onÐ  Ðthe€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€in€this€case. ´Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€Denise,€on€the€day€after€Gainesðð€house€burned,€the€defendantððs€brotherÐ  Ðconfessed€to€her€that€he€had€set€fire€to€Gainesðð€house€by€placing€a€lighted€candle€in€the€middle€ofРƾ Ðthe€bed€in€the€left€front€bedroom. /Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€with€respect€to€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€wasÐ  Ðequivalent€to€a€post„conviction€hearing.€€We€find€trial€counselððs€failure€to€prepare€for€and€presentРƾ Ðevidence€at€the€sentencing€phase€troubling;€however,€we€need€not€evaluate€counselððsÐ „| Ðrepresentation€because€we€reverse€on€other€grounds.€, øð AZ"Arial Regular- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d :Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€jury€found€the€following€two€aggravating€circumstances:€(1)€ð ð[t]he€defendant€wasÐ  Ðpreviously€convicted€of€one€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€which€involve€the€useРƾ Ðor€threat€of€violence€to€the€person;ðð€and€(2)€ð ð[t]he€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruelÐ „| Ðin€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(2)€and€(5)€(1982).€Ð B : ÐThese€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€were€redefined€in€1989€and€are€currently€codified€atÐ  ø ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2)€and€(5)€(1998€Supp.). Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€author€of€this€opinion€filed€a€separate€dissenting€opinion€in€òòLynnóó€on€the€basis€that€theÐ  Ðdefendant€in€òòLynnóó€had€objected€to€the€special€venire€before€the€jury€was€sworn,€but€elected€to€deferРƾ Ðthe€trial€courtððs€decision€on€the€objection€until€after€the€trial€was€completed.€€Under€thoseÐ „| Ðcircumstances,€the€error€was€invited€and€did€not€require€reversal.€€In€this€case,€unlike€òòLynnóó,€theÐ B : Ðdefendant€objected€before€the€jury€was€sworn,€and€the€issue€has€been€properly€presented€forÐ  ø Ðreview€on€appeal. Ñ  ÑÑ €% Ñ, øð AZ"Arial Regular <Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôÒÙ òòôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„206(a)(1)€(1997€Repl.).Ô#†ôò òôÒÙ©#ÔÔ‡ôÒÙ òòôÔ QÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€this€highly€publicized€capital€case,€it€is€difficult€to€understand€why€only€sixty€potentialÐ  Ðjurors€were€summoned€as€part€of€the€original€venire. Ñ °7 Ñ èÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€time€of€the€defendantððs€trial,€the€sequestration€statute€provided€as€follows:€ð ðIn€allÐ  Ðcriminal€prosecutions€except€in€those€in€which€a€death€sentence€may€be€rendered,€the€judge€of€theРƾ Ðcriminal€court€may,€in€his€discretion,€with€the€consent€of€the€defendant,€and€with€the€consent€of€theÐ „| Ðdistrict€attorney€general,€permit€the€jurors€to€separate€at€times€when€they€are€not€engaged€upon€theÐ B : Ðactual€trial€or€deliberation€of€the€case.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„116€(1982€Repl.).€€€ cÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝTen€of€the€twelve€jurors€who€rendered€the€verdict€in€this€case€had€been€exposed€toÐ  Ðpretrial€publicity,€though€all€the€jurors€stated€they€had€not€formed€an€opinion.€€ QÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ôòòôÔIn€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€694€S.W.2d€941€(Tenn.€1985),€another€death€penalty€case€which€wasÐ  Ðtried€in€Maury€County,€the€jury€was€allowed€to€drive€their€personal€automobiles€from€the€hotel€to€theРƾ Ðcourthouse€on€the€last€day€of€trial.€€The€defendant€raised€this€separation€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€Ð „| ÐAs€a€result,€the€trial€judge€held€an€extensive€hearing.€€In€response€to€questions€by€the€trial€judge,Ð B : Ðthe€State,€and€the€defense,€ð ð[e]ach€juror€testified€positively€.€.€.€that€there€was€no€interference,€noÐ  ø Ðoutside€contact,€and€no€improper€suggestion€made€to€them.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€946.€€€Based€upon€that€proof,Ð ¾ ¶ Ðthis€Court€rejected€Kingððs€claim€that€his€conviction€and€sentence€had€to€be€reversed€because€of€aÐ | t Ðjury€separation.Ô#†ôòò ôª#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€defendant€also€raised€a€separate€challenge€to€the€procedures€used€toÐ  Ðselect€the€òòoriginalóó€venire€in€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€defendant€offered€proof€to€establishРƾ Ðtwenty„five€deviations€from€the€relevant€statutory€procedures.€€Relying€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„Ð „| Ð313,€the€lower€courts€held€that€this€issue€had€been€waived€because€the€defendant€had€not€objectedÐ B : Ðprior€to€the€time€the€jury€was€sworn.€€We€agree€with€the€lower€courtsðð€finding€that€this€issue€wasÐ  ø Ðwaived.€€Before€the€jury€was€sworn,€the€defendant€only€challenged€the€procedures€used€to€selectÐ ¾ ¶ Ðthe€òòspecialóó€venire€and€did€not€challenge€the€procedures€used€to€select€the€òòoriginalóó€venire.€However,Ð | t Ðwe€take€this€opportunity€to€admonish€Maury€County€officials€to€carefully€and€fully€comply€with€theÐ : 2 Ðclear€and€detailed€statutes€governing€jury€selection.€€As€we€stated€in€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€865€S.W.2dÐ ø ð Ð455,€458€(Tenn.€1993),€future€continued€deviations€from€the€statutory€procedures€could€constituteÐ ¶ ®  Ðprejudice€to€the€judicial€process.(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular [Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€language€of€the€pre„1989€aggravating€factor€is€applicable€in€this€caseÐ  Ðsince€the€offense€was€allegedly€committed€in€1986.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡ ôòòôÔState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€82Рƾ Ð(Tenn.€1994)(jury€should€be€instructed€in€accordance€with€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€the€offenseÐ „| Ðwas€committed).Ô#†ôòò ôW#Ô, øð AZ"Arial Regular æÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ôòòôÔAt€trial,€Wade€Bass,€another€of€defendantððs€acquaintances,€testified€that€he€had€taken€theÐ  Ðwallet€after€he€found€it€lying€on€the€floor€of€a€tavern€where€the€defendant€and€Gaines€had€beenРƾ Ðdrinking.€€The€wallet€contained€$300€in€cash€and€checks. 3Ý ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝCurrently,€the€sequestration€statute€provides€as€follows:€ð ðIn€all€criminal€prosecutions,Ð  Ðexcept€those€in€which€a€death€sentence€may€be€rendered,€jurors€shall€only€be€sequestered€on€theРƾ Ðjudgeððs€motion€or€on€the€motion€of€the€counsel€for€the€defendant€or€the€district€attorney€general,Ð „| Ðwhich€shall€prohibit€the€jurors€from€separating€at€times€when€they€are€not€engaged€upon€the€actualÐ B : Ðtrial€or€deliberation€of€the€case.€€The€party€making€the€motion€to€sequester€shall€be€unknown€to€theÐ  ø Ðjury.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„18„116€(1997€Repl.).€€€€ ËÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThough€we€have€not€included€a€detailed€recitation€of€the€facts,€we€have€carefully€reviewedÐ  Ðthe€record€and€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€defendantððs€challenge€to€the€legalРƾ Ðsufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€is€without€merit. QÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ôòòôÔThe€proof€showed€that€the€defendantððs€parents€were€out€of€the€country€at€the€time€thisÐ  Ðburning€allegedly€occurred. µÝ ƒ ÿk$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€XUÕXXXÔÔ€ôòXXUÕÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ ôòòôÔThe€defendant€asserts€that€both€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€inÐ  Ðconcluding€that€he€lacked€standing€to€object€to€the€search€of€his€parentsðð€home€and€property.€€TheРƾ Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€lower€courtsðð€findings.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€thatÐ „| Ðthe€defendantððs€claim€that€the€evidence€should€be€suppressed€is€without€merit.€€This€evidence€wasÐ B : Ðproperly€admitted.ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular 8Ý ƒb­¸"ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€HXvðXXXÔÔ€HXHXvðÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€HXvðXHÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€7,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA„Ôó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regularz%' ((3­¸$££Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý )ÿÿ!dxdxabZc[Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3­¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ°ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÑTR[° AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ8€ vð XXdædÈ8ÑÑ€¤ÑÑ€¤ŸÑÔ‡0XvðXXXÔÑ€#dªÑÓ=€¥´XÐXdÐd=Óà@ƒ ƒ Ìàò òÔ‡0¼v'»X0XvðÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@(ÌàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†0XvðX»0¼v'Å#Ôó óˆÐ  ÐÔ_Ôßx€`G[B2.jzšó–`  `€€@ÿERÆ ` 8ttxPŠ 0 ð – xßÔ_ÔÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóó óÐ È À ÐÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àò òFiled:ó óà @ àò òSeptember€7,€1999ó óÐ š’ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àMAURY€COUNTYÐ ld  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à(Transferred€from€Giles€County)Ð RJ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à(Trial€Court€Nos.€7040€and€7041)Ð 80  Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ   Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€Jim€T.€Hamilton,Ð ü  ÐPAT€Ô_ÔBONDURANTÔ_Ô,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àJudgeÐ êâ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellant.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àSupreme€CourtÐ ¶® Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€01„S01„9804„CC„00064Ð œ” ÐÌÌòòÌÌFOR€APPELLANTóó:à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àòòà è àFOR€APPELLEE:óóÐ  ÐÌWilliam€P.€Ô_ÔRedickÔ_Ô,€Jr.à à àà 8 àà  àà è àMichael€MooreÐ æÞ ÐWhites€Creek,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ÌÄ Ð(After€Trial€&€On€Appeal)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àÌPeter€D.€Ô_ÔHeilÔ_Ôà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAmy€L.€Ô_ÔTarkingtonÔ_ÔÐ ~!v ÐNashville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€TennesseeÐ d"\ Ð(After€Trial€&€On€Appeal)Ìà Ø àà 0 àÌJerry€C.€Ô_ÔColleyÔ_Ôà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àT.€Michael€BottomsÐ %! ÐJohn€Ô_ÔColleyÔ_Ôà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà H! àÐ ü%ô" ÐÔ_ÔColleyÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔColleyÔ_Ôà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à22nd€Judicial€DistrictÐ â&Ú# ÐColumbia,€Tennessee€à à àà 8 àà  àÐ È'À $ Ð(Trial€Only)à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJames€C.€SandersÐ ®(¦!% Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJames€G.€White,€IIÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àColumbia,€TennesseeÌÌÌà@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌÌÔ‡0„Œd „X0XvðÔà@VV(Ìàò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÔ#†0XvðX „0„Œdk#ԈРª1¢*/ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌâ âFOR€A€NEW€TRIAL.à à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àÔ_ÔDROWOTAÔ_Ô,€J.€Ð >:638 ÐѤŸÑâ âÑ°ÑÑÑÑ8€¥´Xdê XXdæ8Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÓÓà Ø àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant,€Pat€Bondurant,€was€convicted€of€premeditatedÐ  Ðâ âfirst€degree€murder€and€arson.€€Upon€finding€that€the€State€had€proven€two€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances׃!×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X d XX0XùfÔÔ€ XUÕX XX dÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô€0XùfXX XUÕÔ€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€and€that€there€were€noÐ ¸ ° Ðmitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€aggravatingÐ ˜  Ðcircumstances,€the€jury€sentenced€the€defendant€to€death€by€electrocution€on€theÐ xp  Ðconviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€On€the€arson€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentencedÐ XP  Ðthe€defendant€to€ten€years€consecutive€to€the€death€penalty.€The€Court€of€CriminalÐ 80  ÐAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€Thereafter,€the€case€was€docketed€in€thisÐ  ÐCourt׃%×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X d XX0XùfÔÔ€ XUÕX XX dÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô€0XùfXX XUÕÔ€and€set€for€oral€argument€with€respect€to€eight€of€the€issues€raised€by€theÐ øð Ðdefendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€S.€Ct.€R.€12.Ð ØÐ ÐÌà Ø àAfter€carefully€considering€the€briefs€and€arguments€of€counsel,€relevant€legalÐ ˜ Ðauthority,€and€the€entire€record€on€appeal,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððsÐ xp Ðconvictions€of€first€degree€murder€and€arson€must€be€reversed€and€the€caseÐ X P Ðremanded€for€a€new€trial.€€The€defendant€offered€clear€proof€to€establish€that€theÐ 8"0 Ðstatutory€procedures€governing€selection€of€a€special€jury€venire€were€totallyÐ $ Ðdisregarded€and€that€the€jury,€which€was€required€by€law€to€remain€sequestered,€wasÐ ø%ð! Ðallowed€to€separate€twice€daily€to€drive€between€their€lodgings€and€the€courthouse.€Ð Ø'Ð # ÐNo€evidence€was€offered€by€the€prosecution€to€refute€the€defendantððs€claim€regardingÐ ¸)°"% Ðthe€selection€of€the€special€venire€or€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€prima€facie€showing€ofÐ ˜+$' Ðâ âjury€separation.€€Under€clear€and€longstanding€Tennessee€precedent€a€new€trial€isÐ x-p&) Ðrequired€if€the€State€does€not€offer€proof€to€negate€prejudice€once€the€fact€of€juryÐ  Ðseparation€has€been€established€by€the€defense.Ð èà Ðâ âÌà Ø àFurthermore,€in€a€highly€publicized€capital€murder€case€it€is€particularlyÐ ¨   Ðimportant€that€trial€courts€scrupulously€enforce€the€statutory€directives€governingÐ ˆ€ Ðselection€of€a€special€venire€and€the€law€requiring€jury€sequestration.€€Otherwise,€theÐ h`  Ðrisk€is€great€that€a€jury€will€base€its€decision€on€extraneous€information.€€Here,€the€trialÐ H@  Ðcourt€€failed€to€utilize€the€selection€procedures€prescribed€by€the€statute€and€alsoÐ (  Ðallowed€the€jury€to€separate€twice€daily€during€the€course€of€the€trial.€€In€the€absenceÐ  Ðof€countervailing€proof€from€the€State€to€show€that€the€juryððs€decision€was€notÐ èà Ðinfluenced€by€extraneous€information,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€these€seriousÐ ÈÀ Ðerrors€were€harmless.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððs€convictions€are€reversed€and€theÐ ¨  Ðcase€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.Ð ˆ€ ÐÌà Ø àAs€a€result€of€the€remand,€many€of€the€errors€assigned€by€the€defendant€in€thisÐ H!@ Ðappeal€have€been€rendered€moot€and€are€pretermitted.€€However,€because€this€issueÐ (#  Ðwill€be€relevant€upon€remand,€we€have€also€considered€the€defendantððs€claim€that€theÐ %  Ðindictment€should€be€quashed€because€of€racial€discrimination€in€the€selection€of€theÐ è&à" Ðgrand€jury€foreperson€and€now€conclude€that€the€claim€is€without€merit.Ð È(À!$ ÐÌà@-ÌàÔ#†X>UXX0XùfC#ÔÔ‡+X7ÚXXX>UÔò òÔ‡+¼rÖ»X+X7ÚÔòòI.óóÔ#†+X7ÚX»+¼rÖ˜$#Ôó óÔ#†X>UXX+X7Úv$#ÔÔ‡0XùfXXX>UԈРˆ,€%( Ðâ âà@ýý%Ìàòòò òFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óóóˆÐ °.¨'* Ðà Ø àWhile€the€dispositive€issues€in€this€appeal€relate€to€the€selection€of€a€specialÐ  Ðvenire€and€the€sequestration€of€the€jury,€the€following€brief€summary€of€the€StateððsÐ èà Ðtrial€proof€is€offered€to€place€the€issues€in€context.׃3×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXX0XùfÔòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð È À Ðâ âÌÔ#†X>UXXXUÕ%#ÔÔ‡X7ÚXXX>UÔà Ø àÔ#†X>UXXX7ÚU'#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXX>UÔThe€defendant,€Pat€Bondurant,€and€the€victim,€William€Ronnie€ð ðHippyðð€Gaines,Ð tl Ðwere€friends€and€co„workers€at€the€Pulaski€Rubber€Company€in€Giles€County.€Ð @8  ÐGaines€left€work€on€Friday,€October€17,€1986,€and€has€never€been€seen€alive€since.€Ð    ÐFive€days€later,€on€Wednesday,€October€22,€1986,€Gainesðð€house€was€damaged€byÐ ØÐ  Ða€fire€that€arson€investigators€determined€had€been€set€in€the€front€left€bedroom.€€AÐ ¤œ Ðmissing€person€investigation€to€locate€Gaines€began€on€the€evening€after€the€fire€but€Ð ph Ðwas€unsuccessful.Ð <4 ÐÌà Ø àMore€than€three€years€later,€in€May€of€1990,€law€enforcement€officersÐ ÔÌ Ðinterviewed€Denise€Bondurant,€the€defendantððs€estranged€wife.€€According€to€DeniseÐ  ˜ ÐBondurant,€who€testified€at€trial,€the€defendant€had€confessed€to€her€both€the€killingÐ l d Ðof€Gaines€and€the€burning€of€the€victimððs€house.׃Ê×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXX XUÕÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Denise€testified€that€the€defendantÐ 8"0 Ðhad€been€angry€at€Gaines€for€some€time€because€the€defendant€suspected€thatÐ $ü  ÐGaines€had€stolen€his€wallet€containing€money€from€the€monthly€social€securityÐ Ð%È" Ðdisability€check€belonging€to€the€Bondurantsðð€disabled€son,€Matthew.׃1Ì×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXXXUÕÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€During€thisÐ œ'” $ Ðtime,€the€defendant€had€made€veiled€threats€against€anyone€who€stole€ð ðfrom€him€orÐ h)`"& Ðlittle€Matthew.ðð€€The€defendant€told€Denise€that€on€the€evening€of€October€17,€whileÐ 4+,$( Ðat€Gainesðð€house,€he€caught€Gaines€cheating€while€playing€cards.€€At€this€point,€theÐ -ø%* Ðdefendant€ð ðjust€went€off,ðð€and€beat€Gaines€to€death€with€a€small€rocking€chairÐ  Ðbecause€he€ð ðcould€not€allow€anyone€to€take€anything€from€little€Matthew.ðð€€TheÐ ÔÌ Ðbeating,€which€continued€for€thirty€minutes€after€Gaines€had€died,€was€of€such€forceÐ   ˜ Ðas€to€leave€only€a€small€piece€of€the€rocking€chair€intact.€€The€defendant€and€hisÐ l d Ðbrother,€Pete€Bondurant,€dismembered€the€victimððs€body,€cleaned€the€house€so€thatÐ 80 Ðno€trace€of€blood€or€hair€remained,€and€transported€the€body€to€their€parentsðð€homeÐ ü  Ðin€Westpoint,€Tennessee,€where€they€burned€the€corpse.׃4×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXXXUÕÔòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÐÈ  ÐÌà Ø àIn€May€of€1990,€relying€upon€information€provided€by€Denise€Bondurant,€lawÐ h` Ðenforcement€officials€obtained€a€search€warrant€and€returned€to€the€Westpoint€houseÐ 4, Ðwhere,€with€the€help€of€a€team€of€forensic€anthropologists,€they€located€seven€burnedÐ ø Ðhuman€cranial€fragments.׃6 ×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXXXUÕÔòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.€William€Bass,€the€leader€of€the€forensicÐ ÌÄ Ðanthropologists,€testified€that€he€was€100€percent€certain€that€the€bones€were€human,Ð ˜ Ð75€percent€certain€that€they€came€from€a€male,€over€50€percent€certain€that€bluntÐ d\ Ðtrauma€had€been€applied€to€the€skull€before€it€had€been€burned,€and€90€percentÐ 0 ( Ðcertain€that€the€bones€had€been€in€the€ground€no€less€than€one€nor€more€than€fifteenÐ ü!ô Ðto€twenty€years.Ð È#À  ÐÌà Ø àOther€proof€€also€supported€Deniseððs€testimony€and€the€forensic€evidence.€€ForÐ `'X $ Ðexample,€a€childððs€rocking€chair€that€had€been€in€the€front€left€bedroom€of€GainesððÐ ,)$"& Ðhouse€was€missing€after€the€fire.€€The€defendant€had€also€made€several€strange€orÐ ø*ð#( Ðincriminating€statements€around€the€time€of€Gainesðð€disappearance.€€TheseÐ Ä,¼%* Ðâ âstatements€ranged€from€the€defendantððs€remark€that€Gaines€had€joined€the€ForeignÐ .ˆ', ÐLegion€to€the€defendantððs€outright€admission€to€one€co„worker€that€he€had€ð ðkilled€theÐ  Ðson„of„a„bitch.ððÐ ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà Ø àBased€on€this€evidence,€the€jury€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first„degreeÐ l d Ðpremeditated€murder€and€arson.Ð 80 ÐÌà Ø àAt€the€sentencing€hearing,€the€State€introduced€proof€of€the€defendantððsÐ ÐÈ  Ðconviction€of€second€degree€murder€in€Giles€County€in€March€of€1991.€€The€defenseÐ œ”  Ðpresented€the€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€mother,€who€recounted€the€circumstancesÐ h` Ðof€the€defendantððs€childhood€and€described€him€as€an€exemplary€son,€who€hadÐ 4, Ðhelped€his€parents,€maintained€a€close€and€loving€relationship€with€his€family,€andÐ ø Ðworked€steadily€for€seventeen€years.€€Relying€on€this€proof,€the€jury€found€that€thereÐ ÌÄ Ðwere€no€mitigating€circumstances€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€twoÐ ˜ Ðaggravating€circumstances€proven€by€the€State€and€imposed€a€sentence€of€death€byÐ d\ Ðelectrocution.Ô#†X>UXXXUÕ£'#ÔÔ‡0XùfXXX>UÔ€€On€the€arson€conviction,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€tenÐ 0 ( Ðyears€consecutive€to€the€death€penalty.Ð "  ÐÌà Ø àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€Thereafter,Ô#†X>UXX0Xùf_=#ÔÔ‡XùfXXX>UÔ€William€Redick€andÐ Ô%Ì" ÐPeter€Heil€were€substitutedÔ#†X>UXXXùf€>#ÔÔ‡XùfXXX>UÔ€for€trial€counsel,€Jerry€and€John€Colley,€who€had€beenÐ ´'¬ $ Ðallowed€to€withdraw.€€An€amended€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed€on€behalf€of€theÐ ”)Œ"& Ðdefendant€by€Redick€and€Heil€in€which€several€additional€claims€were€raised,Ð t+l$( Ðincluding€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXXXùfÔòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X>UXXXUÕ?#Ô€€Ô€$XùfXXX>UÔA€full€hearing€was€conducted€onÐ T-L&* Ðthe€motionÔ‡ XUÕXX$XùfÔ,€and€a€great€deal€of€proof€was€introduced€by€the€defense€in€support€of€theÐ 4/,(, Ðmotion€which€will€be€discussed€in€further€detail€hereafter.€€No€additional€proof€wasÐ 1*. Ðintroduced€by€the€prosecution€at€the€hearing.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion€forÐ ä2Ü+0 Ðnew€trial,€thereby,€upholding€the€defendantððs€convictions€and€sentences,€and€theÔ#†$XùfXX XUÕ\A#ÔÔ‡0XùfXX$XùfÔÐ  ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.Ð ÔÌ ÐÌà Ø àBecause€the€trial€court€completely€departed€from€the€statutory€proceduresÐ ” Œ Ðwhich€govern€selection€of€a€special€jury€venire€and€because€the€sequestered€jury€wasÐ tl Ðallowed€to€separate€twice€daily€during€the€trial,€we€reverse€the€defendantððsÐ TL  Ðconvictions€and€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial.Ô#†$XùfXX0Xùf#C#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXX$XùfÔ€€Ô#†$XùfXX XUÕ9E#ÔÔ‡XùfXX$XùfÔWe€will€first€address€the€two€issuesÐ 4,  Ðwhich€require€reversal.€Ô#†$XùfXXXùf}E#ÔÐ   ÐÌÌà@SS-ÌàÔ‡$¼xþ»X$XùfÔÔ‡¼rÖ»»$¼xþÔò òòòII.óóÔ#†$¼xþ»»¼rÖXF#ÔÔ‡ ¼üi»»$¼xþÔÔ#† XUÕX» ¼üi9F#Ôó óˆÐ ¸° ÐÔ#†$XùfXX XUÕ¦F#ÔÔ€XUÕXX$XùfÔà@ŒŒ!Ìàò òòòSELECTION€OF€SPECIAL€VENIREóóó óˆÐ àØ Ðà Ø àThe€defendant€contends€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€the€trial€courtÐ ¸° Ðflagrantly,€unnecessarily,€and€substantially€deviated€from€the€statutory€procedure€forÐ „| Ðselecting€a€special€jury€venire€in€this€case.€€According€to€the€defendant,€the€deviationsÐ P!H Ðconstitute€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process€and€undermine€the€publicððs€confidence€inÐ # Ðthe€administration€of€justice.€€We€agree.€€The€facts€relevant€to€this€issue€are€brieflyÐ è$à  Ðsummarized€below.Ð ´&¬" ÐÌà Ø àThe€record€in€this€case€reflects€that€only€sixty€potential€jurors€reported€to€courtÐ L*D#& Ðon€the€first€day€of€jury€selection.€€Within€a€few€hours,€twenty„five€of€the€sixty€had€beenÐ ,%( Ðexcused€for€various€reasons,€leaving€only€thirty„five€remaining€potential€jurors.€€At€thatÐ ä-Ü&* Ðpoint,€the€fact€that€there€were€not€enough€potential€jurors€remaining€to€seat€the€panelÐ °/¨(, Ðin€this€case€became€apparent.€€The€trial€judge€then€told€the€court€clerk,€ð ðI€think€youÐ |1t*. Ðbetter€go€up€there€and€call€in€right€now.€€Tell€those€women€to€get€on€the€phone€andÐ H3@,0 Ðstart€calling.Ô‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔðð€The€trial€judge€instructed€the€court€clerk€to€ð ðcall€in€another€125.ððÐ 5 .2 ÐÐ à6Ø/4 Ðà Ø àAdditional€potential€jurors€reported€to€court€the€next€day,€and€a€jury€had€beenÐ  Ðchosen€by€the€fourth€day€of€trial.€€However,€immediately€before€the€jury€was€sworn,Ð ÔÌ Ðdefense€counsel€Jerry€Colley€challenged€the€special€venire.€€In€support€of€hisÐ   ˜ Ðchallenge,€Colley€called€the€circuit€court€clerk€as€a€witness.€€The€clerk€testified€thatÐ l d Ðthe€chief€deputy€and€one€of€the€deputy€clerks€had€drawn€the€names€of€the€specialÐ 80 Ðvenire€of€125€from€the€jury€box.€€Once€the€names€had€been€drawn,€employees€of€theÐ ü  Ðclerkððs€office€telephoned€the€potential€jurors€and€instructed€the€individuals€to€appearÐ ÐÈ  Ðat€court€for€jury€service€the€next€day.Ð œ”  ÐÌà Ø àIn€arguing€his€objection€to€the€trial€court,€Colley€emphasized€that€he€did€notÐ 4, Ðparticularly€want€to€start€all€over€again€with€jury€selection€but€cautioned€that€ð ðwe€areÐ ø Ðcourting€real€danger€if€we€go€up€in€a€death€case€to€the€Supreme€Court,€and€that€CourtÐ ÌÄ Ðsees€how€this€panel€was€selected,€we€are€in€trouble.ðð€€The€trial€court€responded:€ð ðIÐ ˜ Ðthought€we€sat,€right€here€in€my€office,€and€we€all€agreed€that€this€was€the€only€wayÐ d\ Ðwe€could€proceed€with€this€trial€and€get€these€jurors,€here.€€No€one€raised€anyÐ 0 ( Ðobjection€to€doing€it€that€way.ðð€€Defense€counsel€replied:€ð ðat€that€time,€I€did€not€knowÐ ü!ô Ðthat€the€jury€commission€wasnððt€going€to€draw€them,€and€we€were€going€to€limit€thisÐ È#À  Ðto€people€who€had€telephones.ðð€€The€trial€court€overruled€defense€counselððsÐ ”%Œ" Ðchallenge€to€the€special€venire,€stating:Ð `'X $ ÐÓÓà8 Ø àIððm€going€to€overrule€your€motion.€€The€defense€counsel€agreed€to€thisÐ ,)$"& Ðmethod€of€selecting€the€jury.€€We€have€a€full€cross€section€of€theÐ * #' Ðcitizens€of€this€county.€€And€the€Court€is€going€to€overrule€your€motion.Ðø*ð#(Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓTTÓÌà Ø àFollowing€the€trial€courtððs€ruling,€the€jury€was€sworn€and€rendered€a€verdict€ofÐ ª-¢&+ Ðguilty€on€the€charges.€€However,€the€challenge€to€the€special€venire€was€renewed€inÐ v/n(- Ðthe€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€and€additional€proof€was€offered€at€the€hearingÐ B1:*/ Ðon€the€motion.Ð 3,1 Ðâ âÐ Ú4Ò-3 ÐÑ#dª Ñâ #âÑ  ÑÑ €%XÑâ #âÑ  Ñà Ø àThe€testimony€is€ambiguous€as€to€exactly€who€opened€the€jury€box€and€drewÐ  Ðâ âthe€names€for€the€special€venire,€but€the€trial€judge€clearly€did€not€perform€this€task.€Ð ÔÌ ÐIn€any€event,€after€the€names€had€been€drawn,€they€were€divided€among€the€deputyÐ   ˜ Ðclerks,€who€then€attempted€to€match€each€to€a€name€appearing€in€the€telephoneÐ l d Ðdirectory.€€If€the€name€on€the€jury€ticket€was€found€in€the€telephone€directory€but€theÐ 80 Ðaddress€on€the€jury€ticket€did€not€match€the€address€in€the€telephone€directory,€theÐ ü  Ðjury€ticket€was€set€aside,€and€no€telephone€call€was€placed.€€One€of€the€deputy€clerksÐ ÐÈ  Ðtestified€that,€of€the€people€she€attempted€to€contact,€very€few€were€actuallyÐ œ”  Ðcontacted€because€it€was€ð ðduring€a€working€day€that€we€would€be€calling€theseÐ h` Ðpeople,€and€you€just€wouldnððt€get€any€response,€most€of€the€time,€to€most€telephoneÐ 4, Ðnumbers€that€you€called.ðð€€When€the€deputy€clerk€was€able€to€contact€someone,€sheÐ ø Ðtold€them€ð ðthat€we€had€a€case€going€in€court€and€their€names€had€been€drawn€fromÐ ÌÄ Ðthe€jury€box,€and€that€we€expected€them€to€come€in€the€next€day€for€jury€service.ððÐ ˜ ÐÌà Ø àWith€respect€to€this€procedure,€another€deputy€clerk€testified€that€she€ð ðwasÐ 0 ( Ðsuccessful€with€some,€and€some€I€couldnððt€reach.€€Some€people€I€knew,€and€knewÐ ü!ô Ðwhere€they€worked,€so€I€had€called€them.€€I€called€some€of€them€at€work.€€I€knew€aÐ È#À  Ðfew€of€the€people.€€And€then,€later€on€in€the€afternoon,€some€of€the€people€calledÐ ”%Œ" Ðback.€€They€thought€that€„„€they€had€been€called,€and€they€thought€it€might€be€a€jokeÐ `'X $ Ðand€that€we€didnððt€call€for€them.€€They€had€never€been€called€that€way,€before.ðð€Ð ,)$"& ÐAnother€deÔ#†XUÕXX XUÕL#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔputy€clerk€testified€that€not€all€125€people€had€been€contacted€by€the€endÐ ø*ð#( Ðof€the€work€day;€therefore,€she€continued€calling€potential€jurors€from€her€home€thatÐ Ä,¼%* Ðevening,€directing€them€to€appear€in€court€the€next€day€at€9:00€a.m.€The€proof€at€theÐ .ˆ', Ðhearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€also€showed€that€no€one€had€prepared€a€masterÐ \0T). Ðlist€of€the€names€drawn€or€the€names€summoned€and€that€no€punishment€wasÐ (2 +0 Ðimposed€or€accounting€required€of€those€who€had€failed€to€appear.Ð ô3ì,2 Ðâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà Ø àDespite€this€additional€proof,€the€trial€court€once€again€overruled€theÐ  Ðâ âdefendantððs€objection,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.€€For€the€reasonsÐ ÔÌ Ðthat€follow,€we€reverse.€Ð   ˜ ÐÌà Ø àInitially€we€note€our€disagreement€with€the€lower€courtsðð€finding€that€defenseÐ 80 Ðcounsel€acquiesced€in€the€procedure€used€to€select€the€special€venire.€€The€recordÐ ü  Ðreflects€that€defense€counsel€only€acquiesced€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€summonÐ ÐÈ  Ðadditional€potential€jurors€after€jury€selection€had€begun.€€Defense€counsel€wasÐ œ”  Ðunaware€of€the€method€used€to€summon€the€potential€jurors€until€immediately€beforeÐ h` Ðthe€jury€was€sworn,€which€was€four€days€into€the€trial.€€As€soon€as€defense€counselÐ 4, Ðlearned€of€the€method€utilized,€an€objection€was€interposed.€€Accordingly,€contraryÐ ø Ðto€the€decisions€of€the€lower€courts,€we€hold€that€defense€counsel€did€not€acquiesceÐ ÌÄ Ðin€the€method€used€to€select€the€special€venire€and€properly€objected€to€theÐ ˜ Ðunauthorized€procedure€before€the€jury€had€been€sworn.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„Ð d\ Ð313€(1994€Repl.)(ð ðòò[i]n€the€absence€of€fraudóó,€no€irregularity€with€respect€to€theÐ 0 ( Ðprovisions€of€this€part€or€the€procedure€thereunder€shall€affect€the€validity€of€anyÐ ü!ô Ðselection€of€any€grand€jury,€or€the€validity€of€any€verdict€rendered€by€the€trial€juryÐ È#À  Ðòòunless€such€irregularity€has€been€specially€pointed€out€and€exceptions€taken€theretoÐ ”%Œ" Ðbefore€the€jury€is€sworn.óóðð)€(emphasis€added).׃,×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXX XUÕÔòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XUÕXXXUÕ_#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔÐ `'X $ ÐÌà Ø àIn€addition,€we€have€also€determined€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erredÐ ø*ð#( Ðin€distinguishing€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Lynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€892€(Tenn.Ð Ä,¼%* Ð1996),Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕ i#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔ׃×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXX XUÕÔòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€involved€facts€quite€similar€to€the€circumstances€ofÔ#†XUÕXXXUÕÙj#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔ€this€case.€€In€thatÐ  Ðcase,€the€trial€court€directed€the€court€clerk€to€draw€new€names€for€a€special€venireÐ ÔÌ Ðafter€a€hearing€had€disclosed€evidence€that€the€original€venire€was€tainted€by€juryÐ   ˜ Ðtampering.€€The€court€clerk€opened€the€jury€box€in€his€office,€unsealed€it,€and€drewÐ l d Ðsufficient€names€to€constitute€the€special€jury€venire.€€Counsel€was€not€supplied€a€listÐ 80 Ðof€the€names€until€immediately€before€jury€selection.€€òòId.óó€at€894.€Ð ü  ÐÌà Ø àAfter€reviewing€the€statutory€provisions€that€prescribe€the€method€by€which€aÐ œ”  Ðspecial€venire€is€to€be€selected,€this€Court€held€that€proof€of€actual€prejudice€is€notÐ h` Ðrequired€in€circumstances€involving€flagrant,€unreasonable,€and€unnecessaryÐ 4, Ðdeviations€from€those€statutory€provisions.€€In€so€holding,€we€stated€as€follows:Ð ø ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àWe€do€not€question€the€integrity€of€the€court€officials€in€this€case.€Ð ÌÄ ÐUndoubtedly,€their€motives€and€intentions€were€honorable.€€WeÐ ²ª Ðacknowledge€that€they€were€called€upon€to€perform€an€infrequentlyÐ ˜ Ðused€procedure,€that€of€impaneling€a€special€venire.€€Nonetheless,€theÐ ~v Ðstatutes€are€explicit.€€The€procedures€required€are€detailed.€€ThisÐ d\ Ðjudicial€proceeding€had€already€been€discolored€by€the€trial€judgeððsÐ JB Ðearlier€findings€of€jury€tampering.€€The€fundamental€principles€ofÐ 0 ( Ðimpartiality,€disinterestedness,€and€fairness€are€even€more€essential€inÐ ! Ða€case,€such€as€this,€in€which€a€previous€attempt€to€circumvent€fairnessÐ ü!ô Ðhas€occurred.Ðâ"ÚØ À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àOften,€the€public€sees€in€our€justice€system€somethingÐ ®$¦! Ðsubstantially€different€from€what€actually€exists.€€It€is€the€appearanceÐ ”%Œ" Ðthat€often€undermines€or€resurrects€faith€in€the€system.€€To€promoteÐ z&r# Ðpublic€confidence€in€the€fairness€of€the€system€and€to€preserve€theÐ `'X $ Ðsystemððs€integrity€in€the€eyes€of€the€litigants€and€the€public,€ð ðjusticeÐ F(>!% Ðmust€satisfy€the€appearance€of€justice.ðð€€òòOffutt€v.€United€Statesóó,€348Ð ,)$"& ÐU.S.€11,€14,€75€S.€Ct.€11,€13,€99€L.Ed.11€(1954).Ð* #'Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ¸oÓÌòòId.óó€at€898.Ð Ä,¼%* ÐÌà Ø àWhile€acknowledging€the€existence€of€òòLynnóó,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€inÐ \0T). Ðthis€case€stated€that€òòLynnóó€applied€ð ðnarrowly€to€the€facts€of€that€case.€.€.€[where]€thereÐ (2 +0 Ðwere€claims€of€jury€tampering.ðð€€We€disagree€and€Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕÉk#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔconclude€that€the€holding€of€òòLynnóóÐ ô3ì,2 Ðapplies€with€equal€force€in€the€context€and€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Here,€the€trialÐ  Ðcourt€substantially,€flagrantly,€and€unnecessarily€deviated€from€the€statutoryÐ ÔÌ Ðprocedures,€and€the€defendant€objected€to€the€deviations€prior€to€the€time€the€juryÐ   ˜ Ðwas€sworn.׃"×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X d XX XUÕÔÔ€ XUÕX XX dÔòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕ8w#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔÐ l d ÐÌà Ø àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€22„2„308(a)(2)(1994€Repl.),€provides€theÐ ü  Ðfollowing€procedures€to€govern€the€selection€of€a€special€venire:Ð ÐÈ  ÐÓÓà8 Ø àIn€the€event€by€reason€of€the€disqualification€of€proposed€jurors,€orÐ œ”  Ðother€cause,€the€required€number€of€jurors€cannot€be€obtained€from€theÐ ‚z  Ðvenire,€the€clerk€of€the€court€shall€produce€in€open€court€the€jury€box,Ð h` Ðand€the€box€shall€be€opened€by€the€court€and€there€shall€be€drawnÐ NF Ðtherefrom,€as€directed€by€the€court,€the€number€of€names€deemed€byÐ 4, Ðthe€judge€sufficient€to€complete€the€juries.€€This€process€shall,€ifÐ  Ðnecessary,€continue€until€the€grand€and€petit€juries€are€completed;€butÐ ø Ðthe€judge€of€the€court€instead€of€following€the€last€mentioned€procedureÐ æÞ Ðmay,€if€the€judge€shall€deem€proper,€furnish€a€sufficient€number€ofÐ ÌÄ Ðnames€of€persons€to€be€summoned€to€the€sheriff,€or€the€judge€may,€ifÐ ²ª Ðthe€judge€thinks€proper,€direct€the€sheriff€to€summon€a€sufficientÐ ˜ Ðnumber€to€complete€the€juries.Ð~vØ À!Ø À! ÐÌÌÓÓAs€we€recognized€in€òòLynnóó,€this€statute€prescribes€three€options€which€may€be€usedÐ 0 ( Ðto€select€a€special€venire.€€The€trial€judge€has€the€discretion€to€choose€between€theÐ ü!ô Ðthree,€but€if€the€judge€does€not€select€the€second€or€third€option,€the€first€option€isÐ È#À  Ðmandatory.€€That€option€requires€the€court€clerk€to€produce€the€jury€box€in€open€courtÐ ”%Œ" Ðwhere€the€judge€is€required€to€open€it€and€direct€the€drawing€of€a€sufficient€numberÐ `'X $ Ðof€jurors.€€òòId.óó,€924€S.W.2d€at€895.€€€Ð ,)$"& ÐÌà Ø àIn€this€case,€as€in€òòLynnóó,€none€of€these€procedures€were€followed.€€The€trialÐ Ä,¼%* Ðjudge€did€not€attempt€to€comply€with€the€statutory€directives,€but,€instead,€the€trialÐ .ˆ', Ðcourt€conceived€of€and€implemented€an€alternative€procedure€that€was€not€authorizedÐ \0T). Ðby€law.Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕŠy#Ô€€The€jury€box€was€not€produced€in€open€court,€and€the€names€were€drawn€byÐ  Ðclerkððs€office€employees€outside€the€presence€of€both€the€trial€judge€and€the€courtÐ ÔÌ Ðclerk.€Ô‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔ€As€we€have€previously€recognized,€Ð   ˜ ÐÓÓà8 Ø à[r]ules€prescribing€jury€selection€procedures€are€intended€to€protect€theÐ l d Ðintegrity€of€the€jury€system€by€providing€a€uniform€and€ordered€methodÐ R J Ðthat€ensures€the€accused€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€chosen€from€a€fairÐ 80 Ðcross„section€of€the€community.€.€.€.€€Compliance€with€the€procedureÐ   Ðset€forth€.€.€.€safeguards€the€judicial€process€and€protects€theÐ ü  Ðadministration€of€justice.€€€Ðêâ Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓ´ƒÓòòColemanóó,€865€S.W.2d€at€458€(citations€omitted).Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕ]ƒ#Ô€€€The€proof€offered€by€the€defendantÐ ¶®  Ðon€this€issue€clearly€illustrates€that€the€method€employed€in€this€case€denigrated€theÐ ‚z  Ðintegrity€of€the€jury€system€and€resulted€in€a€subjective€and€disorderly€selectionÐ NF Ðprocess.Ð  ÐÌà Ø àFor€example,€even€assuming€that€the€names€were€randomly€drawn€from€theÐ ²ª Ðjury€box€by€clerkððs€office€employees,€the€method€used€to€summon€potential€jurorsÐ ~v Ðcompromised€the€randomness€of€the€procedure.€€The€evidence€reflects€that€potentialÐ JB Ðjurors€known€to€the€clerkððs€office€employees€were€called€at€work€while€all€otherÐ ! Ðpotential€jurors€were€called€at€home.€€Given€the€fact€that€the€potential€jurors€wereÐ â"Ú Ðbeing€called€in€the€middle€of€a€work€day,€it€is€much€more€likely€that€those€actuallyÐ ®$¦! Ðcontacted€were€potential€jurors€with€whom€the€clerkððs€office€employees€wereÐ z&r# Ðacquainted.€€The€manner€in€which€this€erroneous€procedure€impugned€the€integrityÐ F(>!% Ðof€the€jury€system€is€sharply€illustrated€by€the€fact€that€some€potential€jurors€believedÐ * #' Ðthe€telephone€ð ðsummonsðð€was€a€joke€since€they€had€never€before€been€summonedÐ Þ+Ö$) Ðfor€jury€service€in€that€manner.€€The€fact€that€potential€jurors€were€aware€that€theÐ ª-¢&+ Ðsummons€procedure€was€unusual€also€could€have€inherently€caused€jurors€toÐ v/n(- Ðspeculate€that€the€defendant€was€more€dangerous€or€that€the€alleged€crime€was€moreÐ B1:*/ Ðserious€than€other€criminal€cases.€€Also€quite€troubling€is€the€fact€that€the€specialÐ 3,1 Ðvenire€was€called€after€jury€selection€had€already€begun.€€The€record€reflects€that€aÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðnews€account€of€the€facts€of€the€case€and€of€the€progress€of€jury€selection€had€beenÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðpublished€in€a€local€evening€newspaper€at€the€end€of€the€first€day€of€jury€selection.€Ð  ÐMany€of€the€potential€jurors€who€reported€on€the€second€day€of€jury€selection€inÐ ÔÌ Ðresponse€to€the€special€venire€had€read€the€article.׃)×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXXXUÕÔòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð   ˜ ÐÌà Ø àJust€as€in€Ô‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔòòLynnóó,€we€do€not€question€the€integrity,€motives,€or€intentions€of€theÐ 80 Ðcourt€officials.€€To€the€contrary,€we€realize€that€the€trial€court€was€faced€with€aÐ ü  Ðdilemma€when€almost€one„half€of€the€original€venire€was€excused€after€only€a€fewÐ ÐÈ  Ðhours€of€voir€dire.׃& ×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXX XUÕÔòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€this€dilemma€did€not€empower€the€trial€court€to€employÐ œ”  Ðan€illegal€method€of€jury€selection.€€In€serious€and€highly€publicized€capital€murderÐ h` Ðtrials,€such€as€this€one,€meticulous€and€conscientious€adherence€to€the€statutory€juryÐ 4, Ðselection€procedures€is€particularly€important.€€Moreover,€as€the€defendant€points€out,Ð ø Ðthe€statute€provides€two€options€which€the€trial€court€could€have€used€to€solve€the€Ð ÌÄ Ðdilemma.€€Specifically,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„2„308(a)(2)€allows€a€trial€judge€toÐ ˜ ÐÔ#†XUÕXXXUÕ„#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔð ðfurnish€a€sufficient€number€of€names€of€persons€to€be€summoned€to€the€sheriff,€orÐ d\ Ð.€.€.€.€€direct€the€sheriff€to€summon€a€sufficient€number€to€complete€the€juries.ðð€€TheseÐ 0 ( Ðstatutory€options€appear€to€contemplate€situations€in€which€expedited€summons€areÐ ü!ô Ðneeded.Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕá“#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔÐ È#À  ÐÌà Ø àWe€have€declined€to€reverse€convictions€for€minor€deviations€from€theÐ `'X $ Ðstatutory€jury€selection€procedure€when€the€deviations€are€either€inadvertent€orÐ ,)$"& Ðnecessitated€by€circumstances€beyond€the€trial€courtððs€control.€€However,€we€will€notÐ ø*ð#( Ðsanction€flagrant€and€unnecessary€deviations.€€The€trial€court€in€this€case€completelyÐ Ä,¼%* Ðfailed€to€comply€with€applicable€law€in€choosing€the€special€venire.€€The€deviationsÐ .ˆ', Ðwere€flagrant€and€unnecessary.Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕk•#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔ€€As€we€stated€in€òòLynnóó,€ð ð[t]o€promote€publicÐ \0T). Ðconfidence€in€the€fairness€of€the€system€and€to€preserve€the€systemððs€integrity€in€theÐ (2 +0 Ðeyes€of€the€litigants€and€the€public,€ððjustice€must€satisfy€the€appearance€of€justice.ððððÐ  ÐòòLynnóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€898,€quoting€òòOffutt€v.€United€Statesóó,€348€U.S.€11,€14,€75€S.€Ct.Ð ÔÌ Ð11,€13,€99€L.Ed.11€(1954).€€The€procedure€employed€by€the€trial€court€in€this€caseÐ   ˜ Ðsatisfied€neither€justice,€nor€the€appearance€of€justice.€€Accordingly,€the€defendantððsÐ l d Ðconvictions€and€sentences€must€be€reversed.Ð 80 ÐÌÌà@%%,Ìàòòò òÔ‡ ¼üi»X XUÕÔÔ#†¼üi»» ¼üií—#ÔÔ‡-¼Oλ»¼üiÔIII.ó óóóÔ#†¼üi»»-¼OÎ!›#ÔÔ#†XUÕX»¼üißš#ԈРœ”  Ðòòò òà@'ÌàJURY€SEPARATIONóóó óˆÐ ÌÄ Ðà Ø àReversal€is€also€required€in€this€case€because€the€defendant€offered€unrefutedÐ ¤œ Ðproof€showing€that€€the€jurors,€who€were€required€by€law€to€remain€sequestered,€wereÐ ph Ðallowed€to€separate€twice€each€day€to€drive€their€personal€vehicles€between€theirÐ <4 Ðlodgings€and€the€courthouse.Ð  ÐÌà Ø àIn€the€defendantððs€initial€motion€for€new€trial€filed€by€defense€counsel€JerryÐ   ˜ ÐColley,€the€following€claim€was€asserted:Ð l"d ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€jury€was€not€properly€sequestered€throughout€the€eightÐ 8$0  Ðday€trial€in€that€they€were€allowed€to€separate€continuously.€€The€juryÐ %! Ðwas€quartered€at€the€Holiday€Inn€in€Columbia,€Tennessee,€some€twoÐ &ü" Ðmiles€from€the€Maury€County€Courthouse€where€the€trial€was€beingÐ ê&â# Ðheld.€€The€jurors€were€allowed€to€drive€their€individually€ownedÐ Ð'È $ Ðautomobiles€to€and€from€the€Holiday€Inn€each€day€and€were€thereforeÐ ¶(®!% Ðseparated€numerous€times.€€All€of€this€was€prejudicial€to€the€DefendantÐ œ)”"& Ðin€that€this€was€a€highly€publicized€trial€covered€by€all€of€the€mediaÐ ‚*z#' Ðincluding€the€newspapers,€television,€and€radio.€€Affidavits€are€attachedÐ h+`$( Ðhereto€to€support€this€ground.€€The€burden€is€on€the€State€to€show€aÐ N,F%) Ðlack€of€prejudice€under€the€principles€outlined€in€ò òGonzales€v.€Stateó ó,Ð 4-,&* Ð593€S.W.2d€288,€and€this€has€not€been€done.Ð .'+Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÓ žÓ(Emphasis€in€original.)€€The€affidavit€of€Ralph€Sands,€the€court€officer€responsible€forÐ ì/ä(- Ðsupervising€the€sequestration€of€the€jurors,€was€offered€in€support€of€the€claim.€€In€theÐ ¸1°*/ Ðaffidavit,€Sands€stated€as€follows:Ð „3|,1 ÐÓÓÌà8 Ø à1.€€I€am€Ralph€Sands,€court€officer€for€the€Circuit€Court€of€MauryÐ 66./4 ÐCounty,€Tennessee,€and€one€of€my€duties€in€December,€1991,€wasÐ 705 Ðsecuring,€isolating,€transporting,€and€generally€supervising€theÐ 8ú06 Ðsequestration€of€the€twelve„person€jury€and€alternates€in€the€PatÐ  ÐBondurant€capital€murder€case.€ÐîæØ À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à2.€€From€the€beginning€of€jury€selection€on€Monday,€December€2,€1991,Ð º ² Ðuntil€the€jury€was€excused€on€Wednesday,€December€11,€1991,€theÐ   ˜ Ðjurors€were€sequestered€and€boarded€at€the€Holiday€Inn,€NashvilleÐ † ~ ÐHighway,€Columbia,€Tennessee.€€The€Holiday€Inn€is€2.5€miles€from€theÐ l d ÐMaury€County€Courthouse.ÐR JØ À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à3.€€The€jurors€were€allowed€to€travel€to€and€from€their€motel€to€theÐ   ÐCourthouse€separately€and€alone€or€in€pairs€in€their€own€privateÐ ü  Ðvehicles.Ðêâ Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à4.€€Each€and€every€day€Court€was€held,€the€jurors€traveled€separatelyÐ ¶®  Ðand€alone€or€in€pairs€to€the€Courthouse€parking€lot€in€the€morning€andÐ œ”  Ðthen€back€to€the€motel€in€the€same€fashion€in€the€afternoon.€€In€theÐ ‚z  Ðmorning,€I€would€wait€until€all€of€the€jurors€had€arrived€and€then€weÐ h` Ðwould€walk€in€one€group€to€the€Courthouse;€in€the€afternoon,€we€wouldÐ NF Ðdepart€as€one€group€from€the€Courthouse€to€the€parking€lot.€€AnyoneÐ 4, Ðin€the€Courthouse€would€think€that€the€jurors€were€being€transported€asÐ  Ða€group€to€and€from€their€lodgings€at€the€motel.ÐøØ À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à5.€€I€had€no€control€over€the€jurors€during€their€travels€between€theÐ ÌÄ ÐCourthouse€and€their€motel€nor€did€I€have€any€knowledge€of€theirÐ ²ª Ðactivities€during€those€travels€or€the€stops€they€may€have€made,€if€any,Ð ˜ Ðduring€those€travels.Ð~vØ À!Ø À! ÐÌÌÓ~£ÓThis€affidavit€was€filed€on€February€19,€1992,€and€the€defense€relied€upon€theÐ 0 ( Ðaffidavit€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€held€in€October€of€1994.€€The€StateÐ ü!ô Ðoffered€no€proof€to€rebut€the€defendantððs€prima€facie€showing€of€jury€separation.Ð È#À  ÐÌà Ø àInitially€we€note€that€at€common€law,€the€sequestration€rule€required€that€jurorsÐ `'X $ Ðbe€physically€kept€together€within€the€presence€of€each€other€without€food,€drink,€fireÐ ,)$"& Ðor€light€until€a€verdict€was€agreed€upon.€€òòState€v.€Gonzalesóó,€593€S.W.2d€288,€2922Ð ø*ð#( Ð(Tenn.€1980);€Annotation,€òòSeparation€of€Jury€in€Criminal€Caseóó,€34€A.L.R.€1115,€1117Ð Ä,¼%* Ð(1925).€€€The€common€law€rule€has€been€greatly€relaxed,€and€currently,€sequestrationÐ .ˆ', Ðis€a€creature€of€statute.€€Mary€Strauss,€òòSequestrationóó,€24€Am.J.€Crim.€L.€63,€70€(FallÐ \0T). Ð1996).€€Moreover,€under€modern€law,€the€test€of€keeping€a€jury€ð ðtogetherðð€is€not€aÐ (2 +0 Ðliteral€one,€requiring€each€juror€to€be€at€all€times€in€the€presence€of€all€others.€€TheÐ ô3ì,2 Ðpractical€needs€of€personal€hygiene€and€separate€rooms€for€sleeping,€if€nothing€else,Ð À5¸.4 Ðpreclude€such€a€literal€application.€€The€real€test€is€whether€a€juror€passes€from€theÐ Œ7„06 Ðattendance€and€control€of€the€court€officer.€€òòState€v.€Bartlettóó,€407€A.2d€163,€166€(Vt.Ð  Ð1979).€Ð ÔÌ ÐÌÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔà Ø àAlthough€the€sequestration€rule€is€no€longer€literally€applied,€the€purpose€of€theÐ l d Ðrule€„„€to€preserve€a€defendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial€and€impartial€jury€by€protectingÐ 80 Ðjurors€from€outside€influences€so€that€the€verdict€will€be€based€only€upon€evidenceÐ ü  Ðdeveloped€at€trial€„„€is€perhaps€more€important€in€the€modern€age,€considering€theÐ ÐÈ  Ðpervasiveness€of€media€coverage€and€publicity.€€€23A€C.J.S.€òòCriminal€Lawóó€ðð€1363(a)Ð œ”  Ð(1989).€€Many€years€ago,€this€Court€emphasized€that€ð ð[t]oo€much€strictness€cannotÐ h` Ðbe€used€to€keep€a€jury€charged€with€the€life€or€liberty€of€a€citizen,€from€mingling€withÐ 4, Ðthe€community€during€their€deliberations,€and€this€the€more€especially€where€thereÐ ø Ðis€any€excitement€for€or€against€the€prisoner.ðð€€òòCochran€v.€Stateóó,€26€Tenn.€(7€Hum.)Ð ÌÄ Ð544,€547€(1847).€Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕö±#ÔÐ ˜ ÐÌà Ø àAt€the€time€of€this€trial,׃(×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXXXUÕÔòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€currently,Ô‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔ׃2F×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€X d XX XUÕÔÔ€ XUÕX XX dÔòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕض#Ô€sequestration€of€jurors€is€required€inÐ 0 ( Ðcapital€cases.€€€It€is€well„settled€in€Tennessee€that€once€separation€of€a€sequesteredÐ ü!ô Ðjury€has€been€shown€by€the€defendant,€the€State€has€the€burden€of€showing€that€suchÐ È#À  Ðseparation€did€not€result€in€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòGonzalesóó,€593€S.W.2d€at€291.€Ð ”%Œ" Ðð ðððIt€is€the€opportunity€of€tampering€with€a€juror,€afforded€by€the€separation€whichÐ `'X $ Ðconstitutes€the€ground€for€a€new€trial,€but€if€such€separation€afforded€no€suchÐ ,)$"& Ðâ âopportunity,€there€can€be€no€cause€for€a€new€trial.ðððð€òòGonzalesóó,€593€S.W.2d€at€291,Ð ø*ð#( Ðquoting€òòCartwright€v.€Stateóó,€80€Tenn.€620€(1883).€€If€the€State€fails€to€meet€the€burdenÐ  Ðof€showing€that€the€separation€did€not€result€in€prejudice,€a€new€trial€is€required.€€òòId.óóÐ ÔÌ Ðâ âÌà Ø àThe€leading€modern€Tennessee€case€on€the€issue€of€jury€separation€isÐ l d ÐòòGonzalesóó.€€However,€the€rule€applied€therein€had€been€well„established€in€TennesseeÐ 80 Ðfor€over€one€hundred€years€prior€to€the€decision€in€òòGonzalesóó.€€€For€example,€inÐ ü  ÐòòMcLain€v.€Stateóó,€18€Tenn.€(10€Yer.)€241€(1837),€this€Court€stated:Ð ÐÈ  ÐÓÓà8 Ø àThat€the€person€accused€may€have€the€full€benefit€of€a€judgment€by€hisÐ œ”  Ðpeers,€it€is€absolutely€necessary€that€the€minds€of€the€jurors€should€notÐ ‚z  Ðhave€prejudged€his€case,€that€no€impression€should€be€made€toÐ h` Ðoperate€on€them,€except€what€is€derived€from€the€testimony€given€inÐ NF Ðcourt,€and€that€they€should€continue€impartial€and€unbiased.€€TheseÐ 4, Ðobjects€can€only€be€obtained€by€selecting€those€who€have€noÐ  Ðpreconceived€opinion€as€to€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€prisoner,€andÐ ø Ðby€not€permitting€them€to€separate€from€each€other€after€they€haveÐ æÞ Ðbeen€sworn,€and€mingle€with€the€balance€of€the€community.€€òòIt€is€notÐ ÌÄ Ðnecessary€for€the€prisoner€to€prove€that€they€were,€during€theirÐ ²ª Ðabsence,€subjected€to€improper€influence€from€others;€it€is€sufficient€ifÐ ˜ Ðthey€might€have€been.€€There€would€be€no€safety€in€a€different€rule€ofÐ ~v Ðpractice,€for€it€would€be€almost€impossible€ever€to€bring€direct€proof€ofÐ d\ Ðthe€fact€that€it€was€done.óóÐJBØ À!Ø À! ÐÌÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€241„42€(emphasis€added);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHines€v.€Stateóó,€27€Tenn.€(8€Hum.)€597,€602Ð ü!ô Ð(1848);€€òòCartwright€v.€Stateóó,€80€Tenn.€(12€Lea)€620,€625€(1883);€òòSherman€v.€Stateóó,Ð È#À  Ð125€Tenn.€19,€58,€140€S.W.€209€(1911);€òòHickerson€v.€Stateóó,€141€Tenn.€502,€213€S.W.Ð ”%Œ" Ð917€(1918);€òòSteadman€v.€Stateóó,€199€Tenn.€66,€70,€282€S.W.2d€777,€778„79€(1955).Ð `'X $ ÐÌà Ø àTherefore,€applying€this€longstanding€Tennessee€precedent€to€the€facts€in€thisÐ ø*ð#( Ðcase,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€established€a€prima€facie€showing€of€juryÐ Ä,¼%* Ðseparation.€€Contrary€to€the€Stateððs€assertion,€the€proof€in€this€record€establishesÐ .ˆ', Ðmore€than€ð ðthe€possibility€of€a€separation.ðð€€The€facts€of€this€case€are€not€at€allÐ \0T). Ðanalogous€to€a€situation€where€jurors€occupy€separate€hotel€rooms€under€theÐ (2 +0 Ðwatchful€eyes€of€officers€sworn€to€supervise€the€sequestration€of€the€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ô3ì,2 Ðv.€McClainóó,€667€S.W.2d€64€(Tenn.€1984).€€As€was€previously€stated,€the€key€isÐ À5¸.4 Ðwhether€a€juror€is€outside€the€presence€and€control€of€a€court€officer.€€Officer€SandsÐ Œ7„06 Ðclearly€and€unequivocally€stated€in€his€affidavit:€ð ðI€had€no€control€over€the€jurorsÐ  Ðduring€their€travels€between€the€Courthouse€and€their€motel€nor€did€I€have€anyÐ ÔÌ Ðknowledge€of€their€activities€during€those€travels€or€the€stops€they€may€have€madeÐ   ˜ Ðif€any€during€those€travels.ðð€€Interestingly,€the€facts€of€the€affidavit€regarding€juryÐ l d Ðseparation€are€convincingly,€though€perhaps€inadvertently,€corroborated€by€an€orderÐ 80 Ðof€the€trial€judge€reimbursing€jurors€twenty„two€cents€per€mile€for€the€expense€theyÐ ü  Ðincurred€during€the€trial€traveling€between€the€hotel€and€the€courthouse.€€Accordingly,Ð ÐÈ  Ðwe€reject€the€Stateððs€assertion€that€this€case€presents€only€the€possibility€of€aÐ œ”  Ðseparation€and€not€an€actual€separation.Ð h` ÐÌà Ø àWe€also€reject€the€Stateððs€argument€that€a€defendant€must€show€an€actualÐ ø Ðð ðmingling€with€the€communityðð€to€establish€a€separation.€€Over€one€hundred€years€agoÐ ÌÄ Ðthis€Court€stated€the€applicable€standard:€ð ð[i]t€is€not€necessary€for€the€prisoner€toÐ ˜ Ðprove€that€they€[the€jurors]€were,€during€their€absence,€subjected€to€improperÐ d\ Ðinfluence€from€others;€it€is€sufficient€if€they€might€have€been.ðð€€òòMcClainóó,€18€Tenn.€atÐ 0 ( Ð241„42;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€17€Tenn.€Juris.€òòJuryóó€ðð€42€(1994).€€The€proof€in€this€record€clearlyÐ ü!ô Ðmeets€that€standard.€Ð È#À  ÐÌà Ø àHaving€concluded€that€the€defendant€offered€proof€to€establish€the€fact€of€aÐ `'X $ Ðjury€separation,€ordinarily,€we€would€next€review€the€record€to€determine€if€the€StateÐ ,)$"& Ðmet€its€burden€of€proving€that€the€separation€did€not€prejudice€the€defense.€€However,Ð ø*ð#( Ðbecause€the€State€in€this€case€did€not€offer€any€proof€in€response€to€the€defendantððsÐ Ä,¼%* Ðnew€trial€motion,€the€State€obviously€has€not€satisfied€its€burden.€€In€light€of€theÐ .ˆ', Ðlongstanding€authority€requiring€the€State€to€rebut€a€showing€of€separation,€we€areÐ \0T). Ðbewildered€by€the€Stateððs€complete€inaction€in€this€case.€€Certainly,€the€State€couldÐ (2 +0 Ðhave€attempted€to€rebut€the€claim€of€jury€separation€by€calling€the€jurors€as€witnessesÐ ô3ì,2 Ðat€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€questioning€them€as€to€whether€theyÐ À5¸.4 Ðhad€any€improper€contacts€or€were€influenced€by€any€publicity€or€extraneousÐ Œ7„06 Ðinformation€during€the€separation.€€There€is€certainly€precedent€for€such€a€hearing.׃*×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXXXUÕÔòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р ÐÌà Ø àWe€note€that€the€defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€and€the€affidavit€of€OfficerÐ   ˜ ÐSands€were€filed€more€than€two€years€before€the€hearing€on€the€motion€wasÐ l d Ðconducted.€€Therefore,€the€State€had€ample€time€to€muster€its€proof.€Nonetheless,Ð 80 Ðthe€State,€for€whatever€reason,€did€not€offer€any€proof€in€this€case€to€rebut€the€primaÐ ü  Ðfacie€showing€of€jury€separation.€€As€we€have€previously€stated,€this€was€a€highlyÐ ÐÈ  Ðpublicized€case,€and,€according€to€the€record,€the€trial€was€being€closely€followed€byÐ œ”  Ðthe€local€newspaper€and€the€Nashville€television€news€organizations.€€In€the€face€ofÐ h` Ðthis€clear€showing€of€jury€separation€and€in€the€absence€of€countervailing€proof€fromÐ 4, Ðthe€State,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€that€the€jury€separation€error€was€harmless.€Ð ø ÐThe€risk€that€jurors€were€influenced€by€extraneous€information€or€based€their€decisionÐ ÌÄ Ðon€facts€that€were€not€developed€at€trial€is€simply€too€great.€€Ô‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔAccordingly,€a€new€trialÐ ˜ Ðis€required.€€Ô#†XUÕXX XUÕÄÖ#ÔÐ d\ ÐÌà Ø àGiven€the€fact€that€the€General€Assembly€has€mandated€sequestration€ofÐ ü!ô Ðjurors€in€capital€cases,€we€take€this€opportunity€to€urge€trial€judges€to€use€all€availableÐ È#À  Ðmeasures€to€comply€with€this€legislative€mandate.€€We€particularly€encourage€trialÐ ”%Œ" Ðjudges€to€ensure€that€local€law€enforcement€officials€transport€the€jury€in€a€mannerÐ `'X $ Ðthat€will€not€compromise€sequestration.€€We€are€in€agreement€with€the€well„knownÐ ,)$"& Ðmaxim€„„€an€ounce€of€prevention€is€worth€a€pound€of€cure.€€In€other€words,€if€trialÐ ø*ð#( Ðcourts€will€fastidiously€enforce€compliance€with€the€procedural€protections€designedÐ Ä,¼%* Ðto€eliminate€prejudice€at€its€inception,€the€errors€which€require€reversal€in€this€caseÐ .ˆ', Ðwill€not€arise€again.€Ð \0T). ЇÌà@---Ìàò òòòÔ‡-XYiXXXUÕÔÔ‡-¼OλX-XYiÔIV.ó óóóÔ#†¼üi»»-¼OÎåÚ#ÔÔ#†XUÕX»¼üiÛ#ԈРÔÌ Ðò òòòÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔà@ˆ ˆ ÌàDISCRIMINATION€„€GRAND€JURY€FOREPERSONSó óóóˆÐ  ü Ðà Ø àHaving€concluded€that€a€new€trial€is€required,€we€will€next€address€theÐ Ü Ô Ðdefendantððs€claim€that€his€indictment€should€be€quashedÔ#†XUÕXX XUÕŽÛ#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔ€because€of€racialÐ ¨  Ðdiscrimination€in€the€selection€of€grand€jury€forepersons€in€Giles€County.€€In€supportÐ tl  Ðof€his€claim,€the€defendant€says€that€although€African„Americans€comprise€twelveÐ @8  Ðpercent€of€the€adult€population€in€Giles€County,€no€African„American€served€asÐ    Ðforeperson€of€the€grand€jury€in€Giles€County€from€1919€to€1990.€€The€defendantÐ ØÐ Ðintroduced€statistical€data€to€show€that€this€is€an€absolute€disparity€of€sixteen€percent,Ð ¤œ Ða€comparative€disparity€of€thirty€percent,€and€a€discrepancy€of€almost€twenty€standardÐ ph Ðdeviations.€€As€legal€support€for€his€assertion,€the€defendant€relies€upon€òòRose€v.Ð <4 ÐMitchellóó,€443€U.S.€545,€99€S.Ct.€2993,€61€L.Ed.2d€739€(1979).Ð  ÐÌà Ø àThe€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€rejected€the€defendantððsÐ   ˜ Ðclaim€and€found€that€grand€jury€forepersons€in€Tennessee€are€ministerial€and€co„Ð l"d Ðequal€with€other€grand€jurors;€therefore,€to€establish€a€prima€facie€equal€protectionÐ 8$0  Ðclaim,€Tennessee€defendants€must€offer€proof€that€racial€discrimination€tainted€theÐ &ü" Ðentire€grand€jury.€€We€agree.Ð Ð'È $ ÐÌà Ø àAn€identical€claim€was€raised€by€the€defendant€in€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€769Ð h+`$( ÐS.W.2d€875€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€(perm.€app.€denied€April€3,€1989).€€TheÐ 4-,&* Ðintermediate€appellate€court€in€òòJeffersonóó€fully€considered€the€relevant€case€law€andÐ /ø', Ðrejected€the€defendantððs€claim,€stating€as€follows:Ð Ì0Ä). ÐÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àIn€Tennessee,€the€foreman€is€the€spokesperson€for€the€grandÐ ˜2+0 Ðjury€and€has€the€same€voting€power€as€any€other€grand€jury€member.€Ð ~3v,1 ÐòòBolen€v.€Stateóó,€544€S.W.2d€918,€920€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€NotÐ d4\-2 Ðonly€does€the€foreman€not€have€the€power€to€veto€an€indictment,€hisÐ J5B.3 Ðauthority,€within€this€context,€is€no€greater€than€any€other€member€ofÐ 06(/4 Ðthe€grand€jury€venire.€€òòState€v.€Collinsóó,€65€Tenn.€151,€153„54€(1873);Ð 705 ÐòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòApplewhite€v.€Stateóó,€597€S.W.2d€328€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ü7ô06 Ð1979);€òòBird€v.€Stateóó,€103€Tenn.€343,€52€S.W.€1076€(1899);€òòState€v.Ð  ÐChamblessóó,€682€S.W.2d€227€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€The€aboveÐ îæ Ðholding€is€bolstered€by€the€observation€of€this€Court€in€òòState€v.Ð ÔÌ ÐChamblessóó€that€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Hobbyóó,€[468Ð º ² ÐU.S.€339,€104€S.Ct.€3093,€82€L.Ed.2d€260€(1984)]€ð ðgreatlyÐ   ˜ Ðexaggeratedðð€the€powers€of€the€Tennessee€grand€jury€foreman.І ~Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àSecondly,€again€with€all€due€respect,€we€agree€with€the€StateððsÐ R J Ðcontention€that€the€Supreme€Courtððs€interpretation€of€the€role€andÐ 80 Ðpower€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson€in€Tennessee€is€the€result€of€aÐ   Ðmisperception€commencing€with€footnote€2€in€òòRose€v.€Mitchellóó,€òòsupraóó,Ð ü  Ðand€carried€over€without€any€other€citation€in€òòHobby€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð êâ  Ðòòsupraóó.€€òòRoseóó€involved€a€federal€habeas€corpus€proceeding€whereinÐ ÐÈ  ÐTennessee€litigants€claimed€they€were€victims€of€racial€discrimination,Ð ¶®  Ðin€violation€of€the€equal€protection€clause€of€the€FourteenthÐ œ”  ÐAmendment,€in€the€selection€of€the€grand€jury€which€indicted€them€forÐ ‚z  Ðmurder€in€the€first€degree.€€At€issue€was€the€question€of€whether€theÐ h` Ðclaim€of€the€grand€jury€discrimination€constituted€harmless€error€whenÐ NF Ðraised€by€a€defendant€found€guilty€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€by€aÐ 4, Ðpetit€jury€trial,€free€of€reversible€error.ÐØ À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àClearly,€the€role€or€power€of€Tennesseeððs€grand€jury€forepersonsÐ æÞ Ðwas€not€at€issue€in€òòRoseóó€and€no€evidence€was€adduced€at€trial€relatedÐ ÌÄ Ðthereto.€€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòRoseóó€did€state€that€for€the€purposes€ofÐ ²ª Ðthat€case€it€could€be€assumed€that€the€Tennessee€method€of€selectingÐ ˜ Ða€grand€jury€foreperson€suggests€potential€for€abuse.€€443€U.S.€at€566,Ð ~v Ð99€S.Ct.€at€3005.€€However,€nowhere€in€the€majority€opinion€does€theÐ d\ ÐCourt€in€òòRoseóó€conclude€that€the€Tennessee€grand€jury€foreperson€hasÐ JB Ðvirtual€veto€power€over€the€indictment€proceedings.Ð0 (Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àòòHobby€v.€United€Statesóó,€òòsupraóó,€which€did€not€involve€TennesseeÐ ü!ô Ðlitigants€or€matters€of€Tennessee€law,€decided€the€narrow€question€ofÐ â"Ú Ðwhether€discrimination€in€the€selection€of€a€federal€grand€juryÐ È#À  Ðforepersons€required€reversal€of€a€valid€conviction€of€a€white€male€andÐ ®$¦! Ðthe€dismissal€of€the€indictment€against€him.€€468€U.S.€at€340,€104€S.Ct.Ð ”%Œ" Ðat€3094.€€Although€the€Court€in€òòHobbyóó€did€not€address€an€issue€ofÐ z&r# ÐTennessee€law,€it€appears€to€have€given€rise€to€a€misperception€andÐ `'X $ Ðgroundless€assumption€of€the€authority€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson€inÐ F(>!% ÐTennessee.€€òòSeeóó€468€U.S.€at€346„47,€104€S.Ct.€at€3097„98.€€WithÐ ,)$"& Ðdeference€to€our€United€States€Supreme€Court,€in€òòHobbyóó€it€appearsÐ * #' Ðthat€the€Court€relied€merely€upon€the€aforementioned€footnote€in€òòRoseóó,Ð ø*ð#( Ðwithout€citation€to€authority,€and€surmised€that€the€Tennessee€grandÐ Þ+Ö$) Ðjury€foreperson€had€powers€greater€than€those€bestowed€by€statute€orÐ Ä,¼%* Ðexercised€òòdeóó€òòfactoóó.€€€Ðª-¢&+Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÌòòJeffersonóó,€769€S.W.2d€at€877„78.Ð \0T). ÐÓ´ãÓÔ#†XUÕXX XUÕÇÜ#Ôà Ø àWe€agree€with€intermediate€appellate€courtððs€discussion€of€òòRoseóó€and€òòHobbyóóÐ B1:*/ Ðand€therefore€hold€that€the€role€of€the€grand€jury€foreperson€in€Tennessee€isÐ 3,1 Ðministerial€and€administrative.€€We€also€reject€the€defendantððs€claim€that€òòCampbellÐ Ú4Ò-3 Ðv.€Louisianaóó,€__€U.S.__,€118€S.Ct.€1419,€140€L.Ed.2d€551€(1998)€requires€that€theÐ ¦6ž/5 Ðindictment€be€quashed.€€As€we€read€òòCampbellóó,€the€method€of€selection€of€the€grandÐ  Ðjury€foreperson€is€relevant€only€to€the€extent€that€it€affects€the€racial€composition€ofÐ ÔÌ Ðthe€entire€grand€jury.€€Here,€the€defendant€offered€no€proof€as€to€the€racialÐ   ˜ Ðcomposition€of€the€entire€grand€jury.€€In€addition,€we€note€that€the€disputed€issue€inÐ l d ÐòòCampbellóó€was€whether€a€white€defendant€has€standing€to€claim€discrimination€againstÐ 80 ÐAfrican„Americans€in€the€selection€of€grand€jurors.€€Louisiana€law,€rather€thanÐ ü  ÐTennessee€law,€was€at€issue.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€defendant€has€failed€toÐ ÐÈ  Ðestablish€a€prima€facie€claim€because€he€failed€to€offer€proof€showing€that€racialÐ œ”  Ðdiscrimination€tainted€the€entire€grand€jury.€€We,€therefore,€reject€the€defendantððsÐ h` Ðclaim€that€his€indictment€must€be€quashed.Ð 4, ÐÌÌà@[[-ÌàÔ‡@X7ÚXXXUÕÔÔ‡@¼rÖ»X@X7ÚÔòòò òV.Ô#†@X7ÚX»@¼rÖOû#ÔÔ#†XUÕXX@X7Ú0û#Ôó óóóˆÐ ˜ Ðà@66%Ìàò òòòPRETERMITTED€ISSUESóóó óˆÐ À¸ ÐÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔà Ø àÔ#†XUÕXX XUÕü#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔBecause€of€the€necessityÔ#†XUÕXX XUÕmü#ÔÔ‡ XUÕXXXUÕÔ€of€a€new€trial,€some€issues€raised€on€this€appeal,Ð ˜  Ðsuch€as€errors€alleged€to€have€occurred€during€voir€dire€and€the€question€of€theÐ d"\ Ðproportionality€of€the€defendantððs€sentence,€are€pretermitted€as€moot.€€However,Ð 0$(  Ðbecause€certain€aspects€of€several€issues€may€become€relevant€upon€retrial,€we€offerÐ ü%ô" Ðthe€following€guidance€to€the€trial€court€and€trial€counsel.Ð È'À $ ÐÌà Ø àWith€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€the€marital€privilege€resulting€fromÐ `+X$( ÐDenise€Bondurantððs€testimony,€we€note€that€a€statute€defining€the€marital€privilegeÐ ,-$&* Ðwas€enacted€while€this€case€was€pending€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð24„1„Ð ø.ð', Ð201€(Supp.€1998).€€We€express€no€opinion€on€the€effect€or€application€of€the€statuteÐ Ä0¼). Ðto€this€case.Ð 2ˆ+0 ÐÌà Ø àOn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€has€complained€of€allegedly€erroneousÐ (6 /4 Ðreferences€during€his€trial€to€the€murder€of€Gwen€Dugger,€the€death€of€Terry€LynnÐ ô7ì06 ÐClark,€and€the€discovery€of€Clarkððs€body€at€a€house€owned€by€the€defendantððsÐ  Ðbrother.€€We€caution€that€at€any€new€trial,€references€to€Duggerððs€murder€and€ClarkððsÐ ÔÌ Ðdeath€should€be€admitted€only€when€and€if€relevant€to€an€issue€in€dispute.€€However,Ð   ˜ Ða€scenario€under€which€it€would€be€relevant€or€necessary€to€mention€that€Clarkððs€bodyÐ l d Ðwas€found€in€Pete€Bondurantððs€home€is€difficult€to€imagine.Ð 80 ÐÌà Ø àThe€defendant€also€complained€of€error€regarding€the€Stateððs€impeachmentÐ ÐÈ  Ðof€the€defendant€with€his€prior€murder€conviction.€€In€this€respect,€we€direct€counselÐ œ”  Ðand€the€trial€court€to€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€609€and€to€this€Courtððs€recent€decision€in€òòStateÐ h` Ðv.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€673€(Tenn.€1999).Ð 4, ÐÌà Ø àThe€defendant€has€alleged€that€several€errors€occurred€during€the€sentencingÐ ÌÄ Ðphase€of€his€trial.€€We€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€most€of€theÐ ˜ Ðdefendantððs€claims€of€instructional€error€at€the€sentencing€phase€have€beenÐ d\ Ðpreviously€considered€and€rejected€by€this€Court.€€For€example,€we€have€repeatedlyÐ 0 ( Ðupheld€the€constitutionality€of€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance,€which€theÐ ü!ô Ðdefendant€challenges€in€this€appeal.€€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1999);Ð È#À  ÐòòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1999).€€However,€the€State€hasÐ ”%Œ" Ðconceded€in€this€Court€that€there€is€no€proof€in€this€record€to€support€a€jury€finding€ofÐ `'X $ Ðtorture€because€there€is€no€proof€to€establish€that€the€victim€was€conscious€during€theÐ ,)$"& Ðbeating€allegedly€perpetrated€by€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959Ð ø*ð#( ÐS.W.2d€503€(Tenn.€1997)(stating€that€torture€requires€proof€that€the€defendantÐ Ä,¼%* Ðinflicted€severe€physical€or€mental€pain€on€the€victim€while€the€victim€was€alive€andÐ .ˆ', Ðòòconsciousóó).€€If€the€State€relies€upon€the€(i)(5)€aggravating€circumstance€at€the€newÐ \0T). Ðsentencing€hearing€but€does€not€offer€additional€proof€to€establish€that€the€victim€wasÐ (2 +0 Ðconscious€when€beaten,€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€323,€331€(Tenn.Ð ô3ì,2 Ð1996)(holding€that€the€State€may€offer€additional€evidence€at€re„sentencing€in€supportÐ À5¸.4 Ðof€an€aggravating€circumstance€that€was€relied€upon€at€the€original€sentencingÐ Œ7„06 Ðhearing),€the€jury€should€be€instructed€only€as€to€the€depravity€of€mind€portion€of€theÐ  Ðaggravating€circumstance„„that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÐ ÔÌ Ðin€that€it€involved€depravity€of€mind.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,€864€S.W.2d€465,€479Ð   ˜ Ð(Tenn.€1993)(holding€that€the€trial€court€correctly€deleted€ð ðtortureðð€from€its€instructionÐ l d Ðto€the€jury€since€no€evidence€supported€a€finding€of€ð ðtortureðð€as€that€term€has€beenÐ 80 Ðdefined).׃/×Ý ƒ  ÝÔ€XUÕXX XUÕÔòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ü  ÐÌà Ø àFinally,€with€respect€to€the€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€raisedÐ œ”  Ðon€this€appeal,€we€emphasize€that€counsel€has€a€duty€to€investigate€and€prepare€forÐ h` Ðboth€the€guilt€and€sentencing€stages€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363Ð 4, Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€In€preparation€for€a€new€trial€in€this€case,€defense€counsel€obviouslyÐ ø Ðshould€review€and€consider€the€evidence€in€this€record€offered€at€the€hearing€on€theÐ ÌÄ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€in€support€of€the€claim€that€former€counsel€were€ineffective.€€InÐ ˜ Ðaddition,€upon€remand,€the€need€for€another€change€of€venue€ought€to€be€carefullyÐ d\ Ðreassessed€given€the€publicity€that€has€been€focused€upon€this€case€in€MauryÐ 0 ( ÐCounty.€€òòCompareóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1,€26€(Tenn.€1993)(Daughtrey,€J.,Ð ü!ô Ðconcurring€and€dissenting)(exhorting€the€trial€court€and€counsel€to€consider€whetherÐ È#À  Ðanother€change€of€venue€would€be€warranted€for€the€third€re„sentencing€hearing).Ð ”%Œ" ÐÌÔ#†XUÕXXXUÕÇü#Ôà@---ÌàÔ‡¼üi»XXUÕÔÔ‡.¼rÖ»»¼üiÔòòò òVI.ó óóóÔ#†¼üi»».¼rÖ•#ÔÔ#†XUÕX»¼üiv#ԈР,)$"& Ðà@,,)Ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ T+L$( ÐÔ‡XùfXXXUÕÔà Ø àBecause€the€trial€court€totally€disregarded€the€statutory€procedures€governingÐ ,-$&* Ðselection€of€a€special€jury€venire€and€because€the€sequestered€jury€was€allowed€toÐ  /(, Ðâ âseparate€twice€daily,€we€conclude€that€the€defendantððs€convictions€for€first€degreeÐ ì0ä). Ðmurder€and€arson€must€be€reversed€and€the€case€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€CostsÐ  Ðof€this€appeal€shall€be€paid€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð èà Ðâ âÓÓÌÌÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à_________________________________Ð xp  ÐÔ#†XUÕXXXùf]#ÔÔ‡XùfXXXUÕÔà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,Ð h`  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àJUSTICEòòÐ XP  Ðóóò òÌÌConcur:Ð (  Ðó óAnderson,€C.J.,Ð  ÐBirch,€Holder,€Barker,€JJ.Ô#†XUÕXXXùf9#Ôà à à