ÿWPCµ ·\3¦“ŽöpPóQxÄAT;„Ÿ:vbS&ré¸U¡q sdéãLö³+\‘Œë9²ou£%ú¢ëÖb}~}ܺÏÃÐA5ìpm´i ý4ÎÊ5lÌÌÉärY¯TtÍS øÚt0z”yòS›3UMÞÖÄ¿søÐüßoè±MseAœî¬öJ³!!V£yG"Åí¬KªèæL)ûÙ””àŠzFgÞ}L )š-9 Ýìö²Š(X’ãV¥Y5¾ ŒÿÊ¥,ËÎ5u o£@\j¯ÿõýõ¹ò`-¥û‰Y4|ë5œZWhŠãhk;]sì­ÆÛ™|! ¶7wؘz´ø«½¨ÿ¶ƒI}Au5‡9PÇuÊ·b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ w· UN» 4 z Ò— i x mz 1u‘ Æ ÆÌ Æ’ ÆX 0DNb 72d 0c–Eùùù§ûûûû¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢bªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªªª 0ë²²²² B 0¤º D3^ D-‘ 0K¾¾ AS Æ\ 0¤" 0DÆ A« ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Œb)L (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularö~ì(¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ý ƒRZñ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÇ©X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô íòXXÇ©ÔAs€previously€noted,€Jefferson€was€tried€and€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€in€1971.€€His€conviction€wasÐ ° Ðsubsequently€vacated€by€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee.Ô#†XÇ©Xòô í~#Ô - ù-(|G2Zñ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XÇ©X»»Ô d(|3O•$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3O•$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚…»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‚…»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XÇ©X»»ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€Ç©XXdì»»d8ÑÔ‡îäîXXÇ©Ôà@™ ™ ìàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ Ö& ÐÔ#†XÇ©Xîîäî#ÔÔ‡¼‚…»XXÇ©Ôà@¸¸ ìàFebruary€2000€SessionÔ#†XÇ©X»¼‚…­#ԈРüL ÐÌò òÔ‡¼‚…»XXÇ©ÔÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JAMES€THOMAS€JEFFERSONòòóóÔ#†XÇ©X»¼‚…0#Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÓOÓÌà@6 6 ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ ú J Ðà@  ìàNo.€92„C„1372€€€€€€Walter€C.€Kurtz,€JudgeˆÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` A߈Ð ªú  ÐÌà@æ æ ìàNo.€€M1997„00115„SC„R11„PC€„€Filed€August€25,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ԈР¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌThis€case€is€before€us€upon€a€juryððs€resentencing€of€the€defendant,€James€Thomas€Jefferson,€on€hisÐ xÈ  Ðconviction€for€premeditated€first€degree€murder.€€In€the€original€appeal,€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ d´ ÐAppeals€affirmed€the€conviction,€vacated€the€sentence,€and€remanded€the€matter€to€the€trial€court€forÐ P  Ðresentencing.€€On€remand,€the€defendant€requested€a€new€jury€trial€on€the€merits€in€addition€to€theÐ <Œ Ðalready„ordered€resentencing.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request€for€a€new€trial.€€After€a€new€hearing,Ð (x Ðthe€jury€fixed€a€sentence€of€life€imprisonment.€€The€defendant€appealed€of€right,€challenging€the€trialÐ d Ðcourtððs€overruling€of€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€the€merits.€€Relying€on€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseððÐ P Ðdoctrine,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment.€€We€granted€theÐ ì< Ðdefendantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€and€now€hold€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ Ø( Ðproperly€determined€that€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€barred€the€trial€court€from€granting€JeffersonððsÐ Ä Ðmotion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€is,€therefore,€affirmed.Ð ° ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ˆØ ÐAffirmedó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,Ð L œ ÐFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Janice€M.€Holder,€óóand€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.,óó€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌJeffrey€A.€DeVasher,€Nashville,€Tennessee€for€the€appellant,€James€Thomas€Jefferson.Ð #`" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€KathyÐ è$8 $ ÐMorante,€Deputy€Attorney€General,€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney,€and€Roger€Moore,Ð Ô%$!% ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð À&"& ÐÌÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌÌâ âòòóóÐ H,˜',ý· Ðà  àThis€case€is€before€the€Court€upon€the€juryððs€resentencing€of€the€defendant€to€lifeÐ ° Ðâ âimprisonment€for€first€degree€premeditated€murder.€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÐ œì Ðin€overruling€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€on€guilt€or€innocence€before€considering€resentencing.€€ForÐ ˆØ Ðthe€reasons€stated€below,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€overruling€the€defendantððsÐ tÄ Ðmotion.Ð `° ÐÌà  àWe€begin€with€a€summary€of€the€proceedings.€€The€homicide€that€led€to€this€prosecutionÐ 8 ˆ Ðoccurred€June€15,€1968,€in€Nashville.€€The€defendant€was€first€tried€in€1969;€this€ended€in€a€mistrial.€Ð $ t ÐIn€the€second€trial,€held€in€January€1971,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€wasÐ  ` Ðsentenced€to€ninety„nine€years€in€the€penitentiary.€€After€lengthy€post„trial€litigation€in€both€the€stateÐ ü L  Ðand€federal€courts,€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€Tennessee€grantedÐ è 8  Ðhabeas€corpus€relief€and€vacated€the€conviction.€€The€defendant€was€subsequently€re„indicted€on€JulyÐ Ô$  Ð24,€1992.Ð À  ÐÌà  àTrial€began€in€August€1993,€and€at€the€conclusion€of€the€Stateððs€proof,€the€trial€courtÐ ˜è  Ðdismissed€the€felony€murder€(robbery)€count€on€the€ground€that€it€was€duplicitous€of€the€felonyÐ „Ô  Ðmurder€(larceny)€count.€€At€the€appropriate€point,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury,€stating€theÐ pÀ Ðelements€for€each€of€the€four€first€degree€murder€counts€(three€felony€murder€counts€and€oneÐ \¬ Ðpremeditated€murder€count).€€Additionally,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€lesser„includedÐ H˜ Ðoffense€of€second€degree€murder.€€The€trial€court€informed€the€jury€that€if€it€found€the€defendantÐ 4„ Ðguilty€of€first€degree€murder,€sentencing€was€to€be€accomplished€ð ðby€setting€his€sentence€at€life€orÐ  p Ða€specific€term€of€years€of€from€twenty€years€to€life.ðð€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€finding€theÐ  \ Ðdefendant€guilty€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€him€to€forty€years€imprisonment.Ð øH ÐÌà  àBecause€the€sentencing€statute€had€been€declared€unconstitutional,€the€only€legal€sentenceÐ Ð  Ðon€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murder€was€life€imprisonment.€€òòMiller€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€758,€765Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€1979).€€Accordingly,€on€August€20,€1993,€the€day€following€the€trial,€the€State€moved€toÐ ¨ø Ðcorrect€the€judgment.€€In€its€motion,€the€State€contended€that€the€only€sentence€possible€for€firstÐ ”ä Ðdegree€murder€was€a€life€sentence,€so€that€the€forty„year€sentence€imposed€by€the€jury€was,€therefore,Ð €Ð Ðinvalid.€€The€State€asked€the€trial€court€to€correct€the€judgment€by€entering€a€sentence€of€lifeÐ l¼ Ðimprisonment.€€In€response,€the€defendant€moved€for€an€order€compelling€the€State€to€submit€aÐ X ¨ Ðsentencing€judgment€form€reciting€the€forty„year€sentence€imposed€by€the€jury.€€The€trial€courtÐ D!” Ðgranted€the€Stateððs€motion€and€modified€the€sentence€by€imposing€a€term€of€life€imprisonment.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€appealed€the€conviction€and€sentence.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€rejectedÐ $X" Ðthe€challenges€to€the€conviction€but€found€the€original€sentence€of€forty€years€to€be€illegal€andÐ ô$D # Ðtherefore€void.€€It€recognized€that€once€a€jury€is€discharged€its€verdict€cannot€be€amended€orÐ à%0!$ Ðcorrected€by€the€trial€court€as€to€the€grade€of€the€offense€or€the€sentence€imposed.€€The€Court€ofÐ Ì&"% ÐCriminal€Appeals€concluded€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€the€authority€to€change€the€jury's€verdictÐ ¸'#& Ðfrom€forty€years€to€life€imprisonment.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsððs€opinion€specifically€held€as€follows:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSince€the€jury€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€premeditated€murder€andÐ ° Ðthe€evidence€contained€in€the€record€supports€the€verdict,€the€verdictÐ œì Ðof€the€jury€finding€the€appellant€guilty€of€premeditated€murder€isÐ ˆØ Ðaffirmed.€€However,€this€case€must€be€remanded€to€the€trial€court€forÐ tÄ Ða€new€sentencing€hearing.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€1,€3„5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€defendantððs€application€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðpermission€to€appeal€to€this€Court€was€denied.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àOn€remand€to€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€impanel€a€jury€for€the€purposeÐ ü L  Ðof€determining€his€guilt€or€innocence.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€this€motion.€€OnÐ è 8  ÐJuly€14,€1997,€a€jury€was€impaneled€for€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€jury€sentenced€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðto€life€imprisonment.Ð À  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal€from€this€sentencing€hearing,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourtððs€denial€of€a€jury€trial€as€to€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€Relying€upon€the€ð ðlaw€of€theÐ „Ô  Ðcaseðð€doctrine,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€trial€court€was€bound€by€the€intermediateÐ pÀ Ðcourtððs€previous€decision€affirming€the€conviction€and€remanding€the€case€solely€for€Ô_ÔresentencingÔ_Ô.€Ð \¬ ÐÓ  Óò òó óÌÓ  Óà  àIn€òòMemphis€Ô_ÔPublððgÔ_Ô€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€Storage€Tank€Bd.óó,€975€S.W.2dÐ 4„ Ð303€(Tenn.€1998),€we€addressed€the€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€doctrine.€€The€following€principles€quotedÐ  p Ðfrom€òòMemphis€Ô_ÔPublððgÔ_Ô€Co.óó€govern€the€outcome€in€the€pending€case:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€phrase€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€refers€to€a€legal€doctrine€whichÐ ä4 Ðgenerally€prohibits€reconsideration€of€issues€that€have€already€beenÐ Ð  Ðdecided€in€a€prior€appeal€of€the€same€case.€€In€other€words,€under€theÐ ¼  Ðlaw€of€the€case€doctrine,€an€appellate€court's€decision€on€an€issue€ofÐ ¨ø Ðlaw€is€binding€in€later€trials€and€appeals€of€the€same€case€if€the€factsÐ ”ä Ðon€the€second€trial€or€appeal€are€substantially€the€same€as€the€facts€inÐ €Ð Ðthe€first€trial€or€appeal.€€òòóóThe€doctrine€applies€to€issues€that€wereÐ l¼ Ðactually€before€the€appellate€court€in€the€first€appeal€and€to€issues€thatÐ X ¨ Ðwere€necessarily€decided€by€implication.€€òòóóThe€doctrine€does€not€applyÐ D!” Ðto€dicta.€òòÐ0"€ ` x` x ÐóóÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThe€law€of€the€case€doctrine€is€not€a€constitutional€mandateÐ $X" Ðnor€a€limitation€on€the€power€of€a€court.€€Rather,€it€is€a€longstandingÐ ô$D # Ðdiscretionary€rule€of€judicial€practice€which€is€based€on€the€commonÐ à%0!$ Ðsense€recognition€that€issues€previously€litigated€and€decided€by€aÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdiction€ordinarily€need€not€be€revisited.€€òòóóThisÐ ¸'#& Ðrule€promotes€the€finality€and€efficiency€of€the€judicial€process,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðavoids€indefinite€Ô_ÔrelitigationÔ_Ô€of€the€same€issue,€fosters€consistentÐ )à$( Ðresults€in€the€same€litigation,€and€assures€the€obedience€of€lowerÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourts€to€the€decisions€of€appellate€courts.€òòóóÐh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTherefore,€when€an€initial€appeal€results€in€a€remand€to€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court,€the€decision€of€the€appellate€court€establishes€the€law€ofÐ œì Ðthe€case€which€generally€must€be€followed€upon€remand€by€the€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt,€and€by€an€appellate€court€if€a€second€appeal€is€taken€from€theÐ tÄ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€entered€after€remand.€€There€are€limitedÐ `° Ðcircumstances€which€may€justify€reconsideration€of€an€issue€whichÐ L œ Ðwas€[an]€issue€decided€in€a€prior€appeal:€€(1)€the€evidence€offered€atÐ 8 ˆ Ða€trial€or€hearing€after€remand€was€substantially€different€from€theÐ $ t Ðevidence€in€the€initial€proceeding;€(2)€the€prior€ruling€was€clearlyÐ  ` Ðerroneous€and€would€result€in€a€manifest€injustice€if€allowed€to€stand;Ð ü L  Ðor€(3)€the€prior€decision€is€contrary€to€a€change€in€the€controlling€lawÐ è 8  Ðwhich€has€occurred€between€the€first€and€second€appeal.€òòóóÐÔ$ ` x` x ÐÌòòMemphis€Ô_ÔPublððgÔ_Ô€Co.óó,€975€S.W.2d€at€306€(internal€citations€omitted).Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àJeffersonððs€case€falls€under€neither€the€first€nor€the€third€exception€to€the€law€of€the€caseÐ „Ô  Ðdoctrine.€€The€only€possible€exception€in€which€Jeffersonððs€case€could€fall€is€the€second€exception;Ð pÀ Ðthat€is,€òòóówhether€ð ðthe€prior€ruling€was€clearly€erroneous€òòandóó€would€result€in€a€manifest€injustice€ifÐ \¬ Ðallowed€to€stand.ðð€€òòId.óó€(emphasis€added).€€This€exception€requires€a€two€part€showing.€€First,€aÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€must€show€that€the€prior€decision€was€clearly€erroneous.€€If€the€defendant€succeeds,€he€orÐ 4„ Ðshe€must€then€prove€that€the€clearly€erroneous€decision€ð ðwould€result€in€a€manifest€injustice€ifÐ  p Ðallowed€to€stand.ðð€€Thus,€to€prevail€under€this€exception€Jefferson€must€show€that€the€Court€ofÐ  \ ÐCriminal€Appealsððs€ruling€was€òòbothóó€clearly€erroneous€òòandóó€would€lead€to€manifest€injustice.€€We€mustÐ øH Ðfirst€decide,€therefore,€if€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsððs€decision€was€ð ðclearly€erroneous.ðð€€InÐ ä4 Ðanswering€this€question€we€turn€to€the€precedent€of€this€Court.€€We€find€the€issue€resolved€by€ourÐ Ð  Ðdecision€in€òòState€v.€Cookóó,€816€S.W.2d€322€(Tenn.€1991).Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€òòCook,óó€òòóóthe€trial€court,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b),€now€repealed,Ð ”ä Ðinstructed€the€jury€as€to€the€defendantððs€possible€sentences€as€a€Range€I€offender€when€the€courtÐ €Ð Ðshould€have€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€defendantððs€possible€sentences€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€WeÐ l¼ Ðheld€that€such€an€error€was€prejudicial,€and€we€remanded€the€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€trial.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€erroneously€instructed€the€jury€under€a€statute€already€found€to€beÐ 0"€  Ðunconstitutional.€€€Such€a€situation€is€analogous€to€òòCookóó.€€Indeed,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ #l! Ðshould€have€relied€on€òòCookóó€and€remanded€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€We€find,€therefore,€that€the€CourtÐ $X" Ðof€Criminal€Appealsððs€decision€was€clearly€erroneous€because€the€court€failed€to€follow€theÐ ô$D # Ðprecedent€of€this€Court.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àHaving€determined€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsððs€decision€was€clearly€erroneous,€weÐ ¸'#& Ðmust€next€determine€if€the€decision€would€result€in€manifest€injustice€if€allowed€to€stand.€€AlthoughÐ ¤(ô#' ÐJefferson€does€not€specifically€address€this€issue,€he€contends€that€if€the€jury€had€been€given€theÐ )à$( Ðproper€instruction€as€to€the€sentence€for€first€degree€murder,€it€is€possible€that€the€jury€would€haveÐ |*Ì%) Ðconvicted€him€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€second€degree€murder.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àWe€find€Jeffersonððs€contention€without€merit,€for€at€no€time€during€the€1993€trial€didÐ ° ÐJefferson€suggest€to€the€jury€that€the€killing€could€have€constituted€second€degree€murder.€€The€trialÐ œì Ðjudge,€nonetheless,€instructed€the€jury€as€to€the€elements€of€second€degree€murder,€and€we€concludeÐ ˆØ Ðthat€the€jury€had,€indeed,€the€opportunity€to€convict€Jefferson€of€second€degree€murder.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àMoreover,€after€reviewing€the€record,€we€find€that€the€evidence€adduced€at€trialÐ L œ Ðoverwhelmingly€supports€Jeffersonððs€conviction€for€first€degree€murder.€€Indeed,€in€the€long€historyÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€this€case,€Jefferson€has€been€twice€convicted€by€a€jury€for€first€degree€murder.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€weÐ $ t Ðfind€that€no€rational€jury€could€have€found€Jefferson€guilty€of€second€degree€murder.€€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àFor€these€reasons,€we€find€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsððs€decision€did€not€result€inÐ è 8  Ðmanifest€injustice.€€This€case,€therefore,€does€not€fall€under€the€second€exception€to€the€law€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðcase€doctrine,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€properly€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÐ À  ÐJeffersonððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€articulated€above,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€properly€affirmed€the€trialÐ „Ô  Ðcourtððs€denial€of€Jeffersonððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is,€therefore,Ð pÀ Ðaffirmed.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Ô_ÔdefendÔ_ÔÔ_Ôant,Ô_Ô€James€Thomas€Jefferson,€for€whichÐ 4„ Ðexecution€may€issue.Ð  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JUSTICEÐ ¼  Ð