Delay granted by Georgia Supreme Court for trial of Ryan Alexander Duke

ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court has granted a delay in the trial of Ryan Alexander Duke, who was scheduled to go on trial Monday for the 2005 murder of Ocilla teacher Tara Grinstead.

The granting the delay puts a stay of the proceedings in the trial court to consider whether it has jurisdiction to review the substantive appeal being requested. The state Supreme Court has ordered briefing and oral arguments, which have been scheduled for May 7.

“These emergency motions arise from the trial court’s order, entered in Duke’s pending murder prosecution, overruling Duke’s motion below for state funding for an investigator and defense experts,” the order said. “As Duke acknowledges, he attempted to pursue an interlocutory appeal of this order via the procedures set forth in OCGA 5-6-34 (b), but the trial court did not grant his request for a certificate of immediate review.

“Thus, Duke seeks to have this court exercise discretion pursuant to Waldrip v. Head, 272 Ga. 572, 574-577 (1) (532 SE2d 380) (2000), to ‘bypass the statutory requirements for interlocutory review and address the substantive issues raised on appeal.’”

Duke argues that the merits of his appeal constitute an “exceptional case that involve(s) an issue of great concern, gravity, and importance to the public and no timely opportunity for appellate review” and that the exercise of the high court’s discretion in granting his appeal is therefore warranted. A supersedeas and stay of the pre-trial and trial proceedings was granted pending “this court’s decision regarding the validity of Waldrip and, thus, the court’s jurisdiction to consider the merits of Duke’s motion for interlocutory appeal in the absence of a timely certificate of immediate review.”

“The merits of Duke’s motions in the trial court (and his application for appeal in this court) requesting public funding for expert witnesses and investigators raise difficult and important issues for which there does not appear to be controlling legal precedent,” the order goes on to state. “Pursuant to our Rule 31, an interlocutory appeal may be warranted when it involves a case-dispositive question, the apparent presence of error likely to cause substantial error at trial, or the opportunity to establish needed precedent.

“With these standards in mind, in concert with the ‘exceptional case’ standard regarding ‘an issue of great concern, gravity, and importance to the public and no timely opportunity for appellate review’ articulated in Waldrip, the issues raised by Duke arguably meet the standard for granting an interlocutory appeal under Waldrip. However, the dissenters in Waldrip and numerous subsequent litigants have called into question the validity of Waldrip’s core holding, and some members of the court have similar concerns.”

The court has ordered that briefs supporting Duke’s case be in within 10 days, while the prosecution’s briefs be due within 20 days — or within 10 days of the filing of Duke’s briefs, whichever is later.

Presiding Justice David Nahmias and Justices Robert Benham, Keith Blackwell, Nels S.D. Peterson, Sarah H. Warren and Charles Bethel concurred with the order. Chief Justice Harold Melton dissented along with Justices Michael Boggs and John Ellington.