Attorney for man convicted of killing brother wants a new trial

By Steve Sanders, countyreporter@laurelleadercall.com

August 19, 2008 09:30 am

— The attorney for Donnie Ray Tucker — convicted of manslaughter earlier this year for the shooting death of his brother — informed Jones County Circuit Judge Billy Joe Landrum Monday morning of his intention to file a motion asking for a new trial.
However, when the attorney — Richard Diamond — began arguing the motion and called District Attorney Tony Buckley to the stand as a witness, Landrum told him to submit a written motion.
Diamond also asked for a motion for post conviction collateral relief, but Landrum said that motion could not be taken up until any appeals have been exhausted.
“He hasn’t been convicted until I hear motions for a new trial,” the judge said.
Tucker was convicted earlier this year at the courthouse in Ellisville in connection with the August 2006 shooting death of his brother, Jimmy Henry Tucker. Tucker was charged with murder but the jury convicted him of the lesser offense of manslaughter. Landrum sentenced Tucker to serve the maximum 20 years. The sentence is to run consecutively with a previous murder sentence, for which he was paroled because he was 16 at the time of the murder. Following the conviction, Buckley said Tucker will not be released from prison. He served 16 years of a life sentence following a conviction for the 1989 murder of Mack U. Lott.
In court Monday morning, Diamond called former Sheriff’s Investigator Matt Ishee to the stand to question him about a conversation between Jimmy Henry Tucker and his mother following an altercation between he and his brother, but before the shooting. Ishee said he was aware of the recorded conversation but did not know if the District Attorney’s office was aware of it or not.
Assistant District Attorney J. Ronald Parrish objected to the questioning, producing a transcript of a February hearing. He told Judge Landrum the transcript was the best evidence. The judge said he would read the transcript himself.
Diamond also argued that the DA’s office did not fully comply with a discovery motion, and did not produce criminal histories of all of its proposed trial witnesses. Diamond called Buckley to the stand, and Buckley said the judge did not order the DA’s office to provide criminal histories of every lay witnesses under a blanket request. Parrish again objected, saying the transcript was the best evidence. Judge Landrum sustained the motion.
“My opinion is that he (Tucker) had a fair trial,” Judge Landrum said. “If you have anything else, bring it up with the Court of Appeals.” He then told Diamond to file written briefs in support of his motion..