Jury Selection Begins Monday in Murder Trial of Former Fisher & Phillips Partner
Attorney Claud "Tex" McIver and his lawyers say the 2016 shooting death of his wife Diane McIver was a tragic accident. Prosecutors are adamant that it was a case of malice murder.
March 02, 2018 at 05:20 PM
8 minute read
Shooting victim Diane McIver told physicians working unsuccessfully to save her life that the bullet that struck her was fired by accident.
Fulton County prosecutors don't believe it. As jury selection in the murder trial of Diane McIver's husband, Atlanta attorney Claud “Tex” McIver, opens Monday, lead prosecutor Clint Rucker must convince the panel the former Fisher & Phillips partner had a motive to kill her and acted with “an abandoned and malignant heart” in taking her life.
Veteran criminal defense lawyers Bruce Harvey and Don Samuel of Atlanta's Garland, Samuel & Loeb are defending McIver, 75, after his longtime lawyer and personal friend Stephen Maples and a team led by former Fulton County Superior Court Judge William Hill at Polsinelli stepped down last fall.
Samuel told the Daily Report in December that he was “amazed at the lack of any evidence” to support murder charges against McIver, adding that prosecutors only hinted at possible motives.
McIver—a politically-connected Republican donor who has helped governors select judges and was a member of the state's Election Board—has acknowledged he shot his wife while a friend chauffeured them to their Atlanta home. His lawyers also said McIver passed a polygraph test showing it was an accidental shooting.
But conflicting statements made by McIver, his lawyers and his spokesmen about the circumstances; forensic anomalies; claims his wife had a new will; and McIver's alleged attempts to influence witnesses has propelled what at first appeared to warrant no more than a misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter charge into a murder trial.
But to win a murder conviction, Assistant District Attorney Clint Rucker must present the jury a convincing story as to why McIver would want to kill his wife, the president of billboard advertising company Corey Airport Services, and why he allegedly chose that particular moment in a car, on a public street, with a witness.
To advance a credible narrative—elements of which have already surfaced in pretrial hearings—Rucker will likely focus on McIver's behavior immediately after the shooting. He will also have to provide convincing answers to several open questions:
- Was McIver simply extraordinarily reckless with a gun he was holding in his lap while sitting in the back seat of the couple's SUV as his wife chatted up front with the driver? Or did he have an ulterior motive?
- When McIver called an attorney who successfully defended him against felony charges in a shooting years earlier to meet him at the hospital where Diane McIver died, was he behaving like a lawyer or a killer?
- Did he refuse to speak to police the night his wife died because he was too distraught, or was there another reason?
- If Diane McIver's death was not accidental, why did her husband do it in front of a witness? And what did he have to gain?
- And if his wife's death was an accident, why did his story about the circumstances keep changing?
The answers to those questions could determine whether McIver is found guilty of malice murder, felony murder and influencing witnesses or a lesser charge—or is ultimately is acquitted.
Here are some things to watch for as the trial unfolds:
A Missing Will as Motive?
Prosecutors intend to focus on whether the McIvers had a falling out over a new will, although no will has ever been found, despite multiple searches.
At a pretrial hearing, Atlanta attorney Harold Hudson testified that, after the McIvers executed separate wills in 2005 and 2006, they had a long-running disagreement over arrangements tied to the inheritance of their Putnam County farm. Hudson also said they drafted new codicils but did not know whether Diane McIver signed them.
Hudson said Diane McIver feared her husband's proposal for the farm's ownership would not prevent his children from his first marriage from gaining control of her financial interest in the property. Instead, she wanted the farm to go to her godson—the son of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Craig Schwall.
Black Lives Matter
Prosecutors have also zeroed in on contradictory statements made by McIver, his attorneys and spokesmen about the circumstances of his wife's death. Spokesman Bill Crane told the media McIver was holding a gun because he was alarmed by a Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Atlanta.
After driver Dani Jo Carter exited the interstate to avoid a traffic jam, the trio found themselves in the heart of downtown Atlanta. McIver then asked his wife to hand him a gun he kept in the SUV console.
But news of apparent racial stereotyping by a wealthy white lawyer with a gun quickly prompted McIver's lawyer Stephen Maples to contradict Crane. Maples said was McIver was not concerned about Black Lives Matter, that McIver's was instead alarmed by street people he viewed as threatening.
Getting the Story Straight
That neighborhood was not where Diane McIver was shot. Instead, the gun discharged in an upscale neighborhood across from Atlanta's Piedmont Park. McIver, his spokesman and his lawyer offered differing explanations about that, too.
They first claimed McIver had the gun in his lap and was removing it from a bag when it fired.
Later, they claimed McIver fell asleep with the gun in his lap and that it went off when the SUV hit a bump. That version also changed after Carter told police the SUV was stopped at a light. McIver and his lawyers then said he was startled awake as the gun discharged.
Finally, they said McIver just doesn't remember.
Police and the Autopsy
Neither McIver nor Carter called police after the gun went off. Instead, McIver directed Carter to Emory University Hospital, although three other hospitals were far closer. When police showed up at the hospital, they talked to Carter but couldn't find McIver.
According to his lawyer, McIver was admitted to the hospital and medicated for an anxiety attack after his wife died. He didn't talk to police until three days later.
Diane McIver's autopsy offered yet another anomaly. The bullet that struck her traveled right to left, back to front and downward through her body, according to the autopsy. But, in questioning an Emory physician who treated her, Atlanta police Detective Darren Smith said the bullet's trajectory as it pierced the front passenger seat was “up slightly” as it traveled from back to front.
According to the autopsy, the bullet wound was “not irregular,” suggesting it “did not pass through an intermediate target,” such as the front seat, before striking her.
Carter told police the shooting was “a horrible accident.” She described the McIvers' relationship as “something to be envied.” She insisted Tex McIver was sleeping in back when she exited the interstate and that he woke up, looked around and warned them, “I think this is a bad idea, girls. This is a bad area.”
Peddling Influence?
Eventually, prosecutors charged McIver with attempting to unduly influence Carter, claiming he asked her to tell police she wasn't there when Diane McIver was shot. McIver was also charged with leaving a voicemail for Carter's husband implying she needed to stop talking to police, or McIver would go to jail.
Carter wasn't the only one McIver allegedly attempted to sway. The indictment charges him with instructing his original spokesman, Bill Crane, to retract statements McIver instructed him to make about the shooting.
Crane told the Daily Report that McIver asked him to retract references to Black Lives Matter. Crane said he told McIver the request “was impossible” because, “You can't put the genie back in the bottle. ”
At a hearing last year, prosecutors raised more questions about McIver's alleged attempts to secure favors from people he knew. When his godson's mother, the ex-wife of Fulton County Superior Court Judge Craig Schwall, visited him in jail, McIver asked her to contact her ex-husband to “make a phone call” that would get him out of jail.
In a motion filed Feb. 24, prosecutors leveled new allegations against McIver, seeking permission to introduce evidence to the jury of attempted bribery and obstruction. The motion claims McIver attempted to bribe a second spokesman McIver hired after the shooting .
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFulton DA Seeks to Overturn Her Disqualification From Trump Georgia Election Case
3 minute readGlynn County Judge Rejects Ex-DA's Motion to Halt Her Misconduct Trial in Ahmaud Arbery Investigation
Trump Election-Interference Prosecution Appears on Course to Wind Down
4 minute readJudge Sets Early 2025 Trial for Ex-Prosecutor Charged With Meddling in Ahmaud Arbery Investigation
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 2Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 3African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
- 4Gen AI and Associate Legal Writing: Davis Wright Tremaine's New Training Model
- 5Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250