Tex McIver Prosecutors Want Journalists to Testify
Fulton County prosecutors have subpoenaed journalists from four news organizations that have covered the shooting death of Atlanta attorney Tex McIver's wife, Diane. But they have been circumspect about what it is they want to know.
March 08, 2018 at 03:09 PM
5 minute read
In their quest to convince a jury that Atlanta attorney Tex McIver intentionally shot and killed his wife, Fulton County prosecutors have subpoenaed journalists who reported on Diane McIver's death to testify at his murder trial.
Reporters from the Atlanta's WSB-TV, WAGA-TV and the Daily Report have been subpoenaed, and a court order was also granted certifying a former Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter, now living in New York, as a material witness.
The journalists published or broadcast interviews that included statements from McIver, a former partner with Fisher & Phillips; McIver spokesman Bill Crane; or McIver's former defense attorney, Stephen Maples, about the circumstances surrounding the shooting. McIver has never denied shooting his wife inside the couple's SUV on an Atlanta street as they were driven home by a friend. But he has always said the shooting was accidental.
In addition to the reporters, prosecutors have listed Crane and Maples as witnesses.
Maples, whom McIver summoned to Emory University Hospital on Sept. 26, 2016, as medical personnel tried to save his wife, is no longer a member of McIver's defense team. McIver is now represented by Bruce Harvey and Don Samuel of Garland, Samuel & Loeb.
Maples and a team from Polsinelli led by former Fulton Superior Court Judge William Hill withdrew in November, leaving only Harvey, who later pulled in Samuel.
McIver is charged with murder and influencing witnesses. Those witnesses include Crane, Dani Jo Carter, who was driving the couple home, and Carter's husband.
Media attorneys have filed motions to quash subpoenas for journalists Morse Diggs of Fox 5, WSB reporter Mark Winne, former AJC reporter Craig Schneider and Meredith Hobbs of the Daily Report. The lawyers contend in their motions that calling reporters to testify without any parameters could run afoul of the state's reporter shield law.
Georgia law protects journalists from having to disclose information, documents or other items obtained or prepared in the course of their work in any proceeding where they are not a party, unless what is sought is material, relevant and necessary to the case and cannot reasonably be obtained by other means.
Duane Morris partner Cynthia Counts argued in motions to quash subpoenas for Hobbs and Diggs that compelling testimony from journalists “will chill news reporting because journalists will be viewed as, in effect, an investigative arm” of the courts. Common practice is for the parties to stipulate to the authenticity of a news report rather than subpoena a reporter to testify, she said.
“The state can't just put reporters on the stand so they can fish for possible evidence,” she added.
Counts and Tom Clyde, a partner at Atlanta's Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton who represents Winne and Schneider, said prosecutors have been circumspect about what they want reporters to testify about and why they want to put them on the stand, rather than let the reporting speak for itself.
“So far, it has been difficult to pin down exactly what testimony the state wants to try to get with the subpoenas to our reporters,” Clyde said. “That's concerning, because the burden is squarely on the state to show why the testimony is not protected by the reporters' privilege. These are just journalists doing their job exactly as they are supposed to do it.”
Prosecutors Clint Rucker and Adam Abbate said in a petition to certify Schneider as a material witness that an article he published based on interviews with Tex McIver “directly related to the circumstances of the crimes charged” and “detailed critical facts related to elements of the crimes.” Information in Schneider's article contradicted McIver's previous statements, prosecutors said.
A review of the news reports referenced in motions associated with the subpoenas suggest a number of contradictory statements were made not by McIver but by Maples, who represented McIver and was trying to correct what he said were inaccurate statements Crane made about the shooting.
Those statements centered on Crane's explanation that Diane McIver handed her husband the gun, which he kept in the vehicle console, after McIver expressed concerns about the neighborhood they were in and a fear of Black Lives Matter protests, which had taken place in Atlanta that weekend.
Maples also revised Crane's claim that the gun fired when the SUV hit a bump in the road. And in an interview with Diggs, the lawyer said McIver fell asleep despite his concerns because he had been treated for “a sleep condition.”
McIver's defense team has long fought to exclude testimony referencing alleged fears of Black Lives Matter. They have asked presiding Chief Judge Robert McBurney to exclude any testimony about race, claiming it would create an unfair prejudice and mislead the jury.
But prosecutors have countered that McIver's attempts through his lawyer and spokesman to back away from claims involving Black Lives Matter illustrates McIver changed his story ”several times.” McIver didn't mention any alarm about Black Lives Matter protesters in his interview with Atlanta police after the shooting.
McBurney has agreed to allow prosecutors to rebut McIver's claim that the shooting was accidental “by exploring if and how [the] defendant sought to influence what others said to the investigating authorities,” including references to Black Lives Matter.
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
© 2024 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 AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readGeorgia High Court Clarifies Time Limit for Lawyers' Breach-of-Contract Claims
6 minute readSoutheast Firm Leaders Predict Stability, Growth in Second Trump Administration
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Funding Rebound: The Top 2024 Legal Tech Investments
- 2Presidential Pardons: A Tool That Can be Used to Move Forward
- 3Some of 2024's Most Notable GC Moves Were Drenched in Drama
- 4Will 2025 Bring a Change to Lawyers' Mandatory Pro Bono Duties Under 'Madden'?
- 5Wholesale Real Estate Transaction Transparency and Protection Act Takes Effect Jan. 4: What You Need to Know
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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