McIver Jury Asks if It Can Acquit on Murder & Assault Charges, but Convict for Influencing Witness
Fulton County Chief Judge Robert McBurney, at the urging of defense attorneys, said yes to the jury question.
April 18, 2018 at 05:29 PM
3 minute read
The jury deliberating the murder case against Atlanta attorney Claud “Tex” McIver on Wednesday asked whether they can find McIver guilty of influencing a witness, even if they acquitted him of all other charges.
“If not guilty on Counts 1-4, can McIver be found guilty of Count 5?” the jury asked.
Counts one through four include malice murder with a lesser included offense of felony involuntary manslaughter resulting from reckless conduct, felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
Count five is the charge of influencing a witness. That charge accuses McIver of attempting to influence Dani Jo Carter—who was driving the couple's Ford Expedition when McIver shot his wife. Carter is the sole witness to the shooting.
McIver is accused of attempting to influence Carter to mislead police, if questioned, by saying she was at the hospital as “a friend of the family.”
Urged by defense attorney Don Samuel to answer the jury's question with a resounding “Yes,” Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Robert McBurney agreed and said, “Yes. The defendant can be found not guilty of some, all or none of the counts of the indictment. “
“The question was a very simple yes or no question,” Samuel argued when McBurney initially said he intended to repeat what he said during the jury charge—that the defendant could be found not guilty of some, all or none of the alleged crimes. “The answer is yes.”
And, prompted by his co-counsel Bruce Harvey, Samuel added, “With an exclamation point.”
The jury also asked the judge if they could be allowed to get back in the Ford Expedition where McIver fatally shot his wife, Diane, on Sept. 25, 2016, this time with the Smith & Wesson .38-caliber revolver he had on his lap.
McIver has always insisted the shooting was an accident, while prosecutors claim he had a financial motive.
On Monday, the jurors were taken to the SUV and were allowed to sit in the back passenger seat where Tex McIver was sitting when he fired the fatal shot. At that time, they could view a rod demonstrating the bullet trajectory through the seat Diane McIver was sitting in. But they were not given an opportunity to hold the gun.
The jury has that gun and has been allowed to hold it and pull the trigger.
The jury also asked for copies of emails that were introduced as evidence. Those emails featured exchanges between McIver and his wife—some over a dispute involving rewrites of their wills, especially hers, as well as McIver's growing financial difficulties.
McBurney replied to the jury's question about getting back in the SUV by saying, “Perhaps,” adding he would give the jury “a more definitive answer in the morning.”
In response to the third question, McBurney said that at least some of the emails in question will be made available Thursday.
The jury ended its first full day of deliberations at 5 p.m. Wednesday, but it had one final request. They asked to see McIver's interview with Atlanta police three days after he shot his wife. McBurney told the jury that they will be allowed to view the video Thursday morning.
The jury began deliberating about 4 p.m. Tuesday but adjourned after an hour following five hours of closing arguments and the jury charge.
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 AllSunbelt Law Firms Experienced More Moderate Growth Last Year, Alongside Some Job Cuts and Less Merger Interest
4 minute readFowler 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
- 1Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 2Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 3Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
- 4Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
- 5Judge Grants TRO Blocking Federal Funding Freeze
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