JACK HAROLD JONES, JR.

DOB: August 10, 1964
Race: White
Gender: Male

County of conviction: White
Number of counts: 1
Race of victim: White
Gender of victim: Female
Date of crime: June 6, 1995
Date of sentencing: April 17, 1996

Trial Counsel:

Richard Hutto

Current proceedings:

• Petition for certiorari pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 06-6392, (filed Sep 8, 2006).

Last judicial decision:

• Eighth Circuit's denial pf petitioner's application for certificate of appealability, June 14, 2006, rehearing denied 7/26/06, Case No. 06-2101.
   
• Denial of amended petition of habeas corpus by U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Apr 13, 2006 (Case No. 5:00-CV-401, Howard, J.).
   
• Opening of the judgment and permission to amend the petition granted by U.S. District Court following denial of habeas corpus, July 20, 2005, (Case No. 5:00-CV-401, before Howard, J.)
   
• Denial of habeas corpus by U.S. District Court, unpublished order dated Nov. 8, 2004.

Current counsel:

Jeff Rosenzweig
300 Spring St., Suite 310
Little Rock, AR 72201
jrosenzweig@worldnet.att.net
(501)-372-5247

Dale Adams
221 W. 2nd, Suite 408
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501)-375-8770
dadams@mawplc.com

Reported Opinions:

• Denial of post-conviction relief affirmed by Jones v. State, 8 S.W.3d 482 (Ark. 2000).
   
• Conviction and sentence affirmed on direct appeal by Jones v. State, 947 S.W.2d 339 (Ark.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002 (1997).

Significant legal issues:

• inconsistent sentencing-phase verdict forms; on one form, jury stated that certain mitigating circumstances were believed to exist by some but not all jurors, and, on another form, jury indicated that no evidence was presented in support of such mitigating circumstances (specifically (i) whether Mr. Jones suffered from the mental disease or defect of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, (ii) whether, despite his efforts, Mr. Jones was repeatedly misdiagnosed and treated with inappropriate medications, and (iii) whether Mr. Jones' parents were often inconsistent in disciplining their children.)
   
• possible due process claim under Hicks v. Oklahoma stemming from state supreme court's harmless error review of the inconsistent verdict form, in light of statute prescribing harmless error review when jury erroneously finds aggravating circumstances (and arguably limiting forbidding such review beyond those circumstances)

Return to casetracker list