LITTLE ROCK — An attorney for a Junction City man serving a life sentence for capital murder argued Thursday before the state Supreme Court that her client’s conviction should be overturned because the jury at his trial was confused by vagueness in state laws.
An attorney with the state Attorney General’s Office argued that the laws are not vague and that the jury received clear instructions from the trial judge.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments but did not immediately issue a ruling in the case of Vadarian Meadows, 22, who was convicted in Union County Circuit Court of capital murder, residential burglary and theft in the December 2009 shooting death of Clarence Ritchey.
Prosecutors said Ritchey was shot outside his stepson’s home, where he was investigating a break-in.
Meadows was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole; the only other possible sentence for capital murder would have been death.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
After Meadows’ trial, the jury foreman provided an affidavit to his lawyers stating that six of the 12 jurors wanted to convict Meadows of first-degree murder rather than capital murder, which would have permitted a lesser sentence, including the possibility of parole.
The foreman said the jury ultimately decided on a sentence of capital murder in the mistaken belief that if a person is guilty of first-degree murder then he must be guilty of capital murder because the statutes use identical language.
Annie Depper, attorney for Meadows, urged the justices Thursday to rule that the use of identical language in the capital murder and first-degree murder statutes is unconstitutionally vague. She noted that the judge at Meadows’ trial admitted in his instructions to the jury that the laws were “a little confusing.”
Chief Justice Jim Hannah told Depper, “You’re asking us to overturn an awful lot of cases.”
Depper said she knew the court had wrestled with the issue in the past and had ruled the laws were not vague, but she said Meadows’ case was the first demonstrating actual juror confusion. She said it was time for the high court to give jurors more guidance.
“The way these laws are, we’re leaving them without direction,” she said. “We have the opportunity to fix that and give them more to go on than two identical statutes.”
Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Kane argued that although the judge told the jury the laws were confusing, his instructions to the jury were clear. She said the laws are not vague and argued that court rules prohibit consideration of a juror’s statement about deliberations.
“The purpose of that is to prevent any juror having automatic veto” if the juror has a change of heart after a verdict is reached, she said.
Depper argued that the constitutional issues raised by the jury foreman’s affidavit outweighed the sanctity of jury deliberations.
Depper also argued that although Meadows confessed to being involved in the crime, the state did not properly corroborate his confession with other evidence and did not properly corroborate an accomplice’s testimony.
Kane argued that “there is substantial evidence to support the conviction based on the confession alone.”