Published October 26, 2006
Pre-trial proceedings continue in Quinton Ray murder case
Issues relating to sharing of evidence
and subpoena use by defense heard in court

By Dan Pool
The pre-trial proceedings against accused murderer Quinton Ray became contentious Wednesday in Pickens Superior Court as two different preliminary subjects were heard by Judge Brenda Weaver.
Ray is accused of killing his estranged wife, Sueann, who went missing after visiting Quinton in Pickens County in August of 2005. The young mother of one was a Woodstock resident at that time.
Sueann Ray's remains were found in a shallow grave in northern Cherokee County by GBI agents in February. Quinton Ray was arrested immediately after the remains were found.
The District Attorney has announced the state is seeking the death penalty in this case.
In the first issue before the court at the Wednesday hearing, District Attorney Joe Hendricks and Superior Court Judge Brenda Weaver disagreed sharply on technical points involving "reciprocal discovery."
When Ray was first arrested, he was represented by local public defender Richard Thurman who opted to proceed with the case under reciprocal discovery. That means the state and defense counsel exchange their evidence with each other prior to the trial.
In September, when the state announced they would seek the death penalty, Ray's legal counsel became Doug Ramseur and Jeff Wolfe from the Georgia Capital Defender's Program.
The new defense attorneys have indicated they aren't going to be bound by the original discovery agreement as they never agreed to it.
But Hendricks said the defense has already received the state's evidence, roughly 9,000 pages including all the GBI files in the case. He argued that defense lawyers stalled for five months (since taking over Ray's case in September) before informing the DA's office that they wouldn't be participating in discovery.
Public Defender Richard Thurman testified Wednesday he had not discussed the pros and cons of discovery with Ray while he was serving as Ray's defense and had not received Ray's acknowledgement that they were going to
proceed along the lines of the discovery agreement.
Judge Weaver said only in death penalty cases are judges given a checklist to follow, and one point on it requires that defendants be aware of the discovery options and that they be given the choice in the matter.
By this, Weaver ruled that any discovery agreement entered into by the earlier counsel was void. She said it seemed clear that in death penalty cases, the defendant must be the one to make the discovery decision.
"Sadly Georgia has a history of retrying death penalty cases because of issues like this," she said.
She said she considers it her duty to see that this case is only tried once.
"I want to see this case tried once, whatever happens," she said. "I don't want the victim's family or defendant to have to go through this case being tried three times."
Hendricks, however, said the defense should be forced to comply with discovery as originally agreed upon. He said at one point, he respectfully disagreed with the court.
"I have no problem with the court bending over backwards in death penalty cases to protect rights," he said. "But the victim and the people of Georgia have a right to see that they get a fair trial."
Defense counsel Doug Ramseur offered a compromise, saying the defense was willing to follow standard discovery procedure during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, but did not want to be bound by discovery during any sentencing phase.
Hendricks shot back quickly, "We will not agree to that."
Weaver also presented the same compromise as a solution, saying that surely with all the GBI investigators and DA investigators, the prosecution could find out any information the defense could obtain.
Weaver said the type of information that might be brought up in a typical sentencing phase might include psychological information on the defendant, family issues concerned in the case and possible abuse.

Hendricks, however, said it is this personal-type information which is hard for professional investigator to uncover. Weaver encouraged Hendricks to accept the compromise, but he insisted discovery is an "all or nothing" process. He said the prosecution would participate in discovery for the whole trial or not at all, even as he acknowledged the defense already has his evidence files.
Weaver shook her head one time and said, "Mr. Hendricks, you and I must have been attending different seminars. I have no idea where you are coming from."
In a second issue, a private investigator (hired by the father of Sueann Ray to work on the case when she was still considered a missing person) and the defense counsel were at odds over whether the investigator's files could be subpoenaed.
The defense counsel subpoenaed the work by the investigator. But after receiving the subpoena, the private investigator turned over his files in the case to an attorney representing Sueann's father. Defense Co-Counsel Jeff Wolfe argued that the work by investigator John Seay should be handed over.
"They [Sueann Ray's family] did their own investigation," Wolfe said. "There is nothing wrong with us asking for it."
The attorney who now holds the information, Channing Ruskell, said he has all the information in his possession and will "turn it over if proper procedures are followed."
He acknowledged he had been given the files following the subpoena but said the defense had not followed proper procedure in asking for the files.
Judge Weaver ordered the attorney to maintain all the documents he has regarding the case.
This marked the first time, defendant Ray has appeared in court wearing civilian clothes instead of prison attire. His attorneys argued in a previous hearing that images of Ray in prison uniform could prejudice a jury.
For the hearing Wednesday he wore a dark shirt and tie. He was still outfitted with a "shock belt" as a flight deterrent capable of delivering electronic shocks to subdue inmates. Such belts are used around the country in other prisons and court systems.
Ramseur argued the shock belt should also be removed as it made it hard for Ray to concentrate on the proceedings.
The judge declined the request.
The next hearings in the case are scheduled for February, where dozens of pre-trial motions filed by the defense will be heard.

Father of accused murderer
relieved of some bond conditions

The father of Quinton Ray, who, like his son, also faces criminal charges in the death of Quinton Ray's wife Sueann, was relieved of some of the bond conditions set for him following his February arrest during a court session Wednesday.
The father, Harold Danny Ray, is charged with concealing the death of another, hindering the apprehension of a criminal and tampering with evidence. All of the charges relate to the death of Sueann Ray and the discovery of her body in a shallow grave in Cherokee County.
Upon his release on $60,000 bond, Ray was required to wear a GPS tracking device so his whereabouts could be monitored at all times. He was also restricted to travel only in certain counties for work purposes until his trial.
On Wednesday, Superior Court Judge Brenda Weaver released him from the GPS monitoring provision but added to the distance he was to stay away from relatives of the slain daughter-in-law, especially the daughter of SueAnn and Quinton Ray.
Both attorneys in the case and the judge said they were being careful not to mention the address where the child now lives, but stated the defendant should remain well away from the residence.
Ray's pre-trial release officer, William Faucett, a Pickens probation officer, said the elder Ray had been a model subject, calling on his cell phone to report any time he left certain counties, even if it were just for a few miles on a road that weaved between county lines. Faucett also noted that Ray had always answered his cell phone when called.
Ray's attorney, David Cannon, said the cost of the monitoring, $8 per day, was a burden on his client, who is providing his own counsel and not relying on a state defender.
District Attorney Joe Hendricks noted this case shows electronic monitoring does work.