James Calvin Tillman - Judicial Appeal

Judicial Appeal

Tillman appealed the conviction in the Supreme Court of Connecticut in 1991 (220 Conn. 487, 600 A.2d 738). The Supreme Court upheld the conviction finding that the jury array was not unconstitutionally assembled, alleged errors in jury instruction did not warrant a new trial and certain field notes were not improperly excluded from evidence.

Tillman argued that the jury selection was improper because court clerks had excused a number of potential jurors due to financial hardship. He claimed that the minority candidates were more likely to face this hardship and that this contributed to the fact that there were no African American males on his jury. The court noted that in a murder trial that drew from the same array there were three black persons chosen to serve.

Tillman also raised several issues regarding instructions to the jury. When considering the victims testimony he had requested that the jury be told that they "may consider...whether the witness was physically impaired or under stress when observing the perpetrator." The jury might have found the victim to have been impaired because she had been drinking and because she had a large cut over her eye that required seven stitches and eventually closed the eye completely. The court instead instructed the jury that it could assess the victims "ability to observe facts correctly...degree of stress...and opportunity to observe the person." In addition he challenged the court's decision not to limit his own contradictory statement to a police detective. The detective testified that he asked Tillman how he got some cuts and bruises on the major knuckles of his hands. The defendant originally said that he was not sure but later said that he did not get them from "punching no girl". The Detective had not told Tillman that the victim had been punched; however he had shown him a picture of the girl after her attack from which he could reasonably deduce that fact. Tillman was not allowed to raise this point on appeal.

The final argument in Tillman’s appeal was that the court had improperly excluded a notebook containing field notes from a police department social worker. The notes did not pass proper evidentiary requirements. Within the notes was a statement from the lead Detective on the case indicating that fingerprints not matching Tillman's were found on the driver's side door of the vehicle where the perpetrator had entered. The finding was reported in court as being fingerprints on the passenger side door.