The Georgia Supreme Court has remanded the case of Jamerson Mangrum back to Cherokee County superior court for hearings to determine if he received effective counsel during his December, 2005 trial.
Mangrum was convicted of murder, two counts aggravated child molestation, tempering with evidence and concealing a death in connection with the death of 15-year-old Katie Hamlin. Hamlin was raped, strangled and her body set afire.
Mangrum, who was 17 at the time of the slaying, is serving a life sentence at Hays State Prison.
The high court rejected 11 other errors Mangrum’s new attorneys claimed were made in his original trial. Mangrum is a Lamar County native.
The full court summary as published 6.15.09 follows:
MANGRUM V. THE STATE (S090525)
The Georgia Supreme Court is sending back to the Cherokee County trial court the high-profile case involving the 2002 rape and murder of 15-year-old Katie Hamlin, whose nude, partially burned body was found near Lake Allatoona. In December, 2005, a jury convicted Jamerson Mangrum of her rape and murder and with concealing her death. He was 17 at the time of the crime.
In today’s opinion, written by Justice George Carley, all the justices agreed that, “[t]he evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Mangrum guilty of felony murder and the other offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” With today’s opinion, the high court has rejected 11 of 12 errors Mangrum claims the trial court made. However, on a procedural rule, it is remanding the case with direction on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
According to the opinion, the evidence shows that at about 1 a.m. on July 2, 2002, Mangrum phoned Katie and spoke to her by phone. An hour later, a car neighbors believed was his was seen speeding away from his house, and five hours after that, her burned body was found dumped near a bridge about a mile from Mangrum’s house. Mangrum gave conflicting statements to police and at trial, first saying he had gone to bed without seeing Katie, then saying he and Katie had consensual sex at his house, and finally testifying they had sex at a friend’s apartment and he then left her there. But two witnesses who were with Mangrum in jail testified he told them he’d sexually assaulted her while another man or men held her down. She had fought back and choked during the attack. The witnesses said Mangrum told them they had burned Katie’s body to destroy evidence linking them to the crime. Forensic experts testified Katie died from asphyxia, and large bruising on her back was consistent with being forcibly held down, perhaps with a knee. Mangrum’s semen was also found in various parts of her body.
Following his conviction, Mangrum’s trial attorney filed a motion for new trial. After the judge denied it, Mangrum’s new attorney appeared for the first time in the case and filed an appeal, listing the errors made by the trial court, including that Mangrum was denied effective representation by his trial attorney. “Such a claim must be raised at the earliest practicable moment, which requires that it be raised before appeal if the opportunity to do so is available…” today’s opinion says. If it is not raised in time, it is considered barred and cannot be raised later. In this case, however, the high court has concluded the new attorney didn’t have the chance to raise the issue before the appeal. “Accordingly, ‘we conclude that the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel has been raised at the earliest practicable moment, and we remand this case to the trial court for a hearing on that claim alone.’”
In a special concurrence, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears writes that since the case is being remanded on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, several of the issues argued in his appeal should be left for the trial court to determine. “… I do not believe the majority should resolve the merits of the issues that trial counsel waived, as the trial court should have the initial opportunity to resolve those issues if Mangrum contends, on remand, that trial counsel provided deficient performance by failing to preserve the issues.” Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein joins in the special concurrence.
Attorneys for Appellant (Mangrum): J. Daran Burns, Scott Archer
Attorneys for Appellee (State): Thomas Moss, District Attorney, Wallace Rogers, Jr., Asst. D.A., Thurbert Baker, Attorney General, Elizabeth Anne Harris, Asst. A.G.
Thank you
Donna Hamlin-Tubbs
God bless you and your family Donna.
"Oh, yeah, this is one sick dude!", my son replied.
Mangrum is where he needs to be and I wish the court system would quit wasting our money with this nonsense.
Mrs. Hamlin-Tubbs, I'm so sorry that the Georgia Supreme Court is bringing this painful episode back. Accept my condolences on the loss of your daughter.
What would be fair if it were your daughter? You brain dead people...can never answer that simple question. Put him with the same prisoner that babysit Jeffrey Dahmer. June 1998 was the last time it was used. Which confirms my point...fire it up. Answer my question now, ok?
Thank you
Donna Hamlin-Tubbs
and Family
I am interested in the facts:
1. Where the 2 witnesses (in jail?)pardoned for their offenses for testifying? Civil or Felony?
2. What mind working person with an IQ over 50 would after hours of interrogation; blab to others locked up, they had committed a felony?
3. Was this 17 year old represented by counsel during the questioning by the officers of said county? They website stated: they had their man?
3. Who is Shay? Wasn't he dating this girl also @ the time; per Carolann's blog to Katie's brother, April, 2006?
4. So the neighbors were on their front porch watching for cars coming and going? at 2 am?
Even in the case of DNA, being she was 15 and he was 17.
Who was at the location where Jamerson Mangrum and Katie were?
Were they questioned? INterviewed even?
Who said Rocha 20, arrested? Wasn't he out of the country? Who implied him in this tragedy?
Who was Jonathan Elkins, 20? Was he involved? Who saw him?
What did the toxocially reports show in the bone tissues?
Why was the change of venue denied, after all the news and media and even local sheriff's website information? It appears to have been very publicized to not seek an change of venue?
Did the neighbors see this boy when he arrived at his residence; since they were on their porch at 2am?
I'm just wondering where all these persons are now and what they are doing?
It's a sad loss for all concerned and God will have his day, I pray this child knew the Lord and her family directed her path in such a manner. I think loosing a child has to be an unbearable event.
God Bless Us All.
wHY DOES HIS SISTER WRITE: SHAY WAS DATING HER AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH?
BEING SHAY'S SISTER WOULD SHE KNOW WHO HER BROTHER WAS DATING??????????????????????
WAS HE INTERVIEWED? DID HE MAKE A STATMENT?
DID THE INVESIGATORS PERSUE THIS SHAY CHARACTER?
Think of the HELL HER MOM AND DAD WENT THRU ON TV SAYING THEY DID NOTHING!!!! HER MOM DIED OF CANCER - HE LOST HIS BUSINESS FOR WHAT??? A BUNCH OF ppl knowing NUTHING. Amazing how we assume things in this world we have no idea of and allow ourselves to be JUDGES on others who r seemingly the best place for our own WRATH.
Where is the guy's who were at the house where Jamerson & Katie went? What was the corner's findings of drugs & alcohol levels in the internal organs? Was that information had available?
Why wasn't this 17 year old Mirandized?
Is it commonplace for that sheriff's department to arrest a minor and question expertly, without counsel?