Appeals court hears challenges to conviction over glass shards, flight instruction and jury handling

Knoxville — In oral arguments before a Tennessee appellate panel, defense attorney Gregory Isaacs urged reversal of his client's convictions, saying key evidence was improperly admitted, the jury was incorrectly instructed on “flight,” and the trial court mishandled a jury note that preceded a verdict.

Isaacs, representing the appellant, said the arrest and conviction of defendant Robert Newman (name used in argument) rested on unreliable eyewitness identification and “a huge mistaken identity situation.” He told the court, “My name is Gregory Isaacs, and I represent the appellant, mister Newman.”

The state, through Katherine Redding, argued the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting evidence of glass shards and that the record supported a flight instruction and the jury procedures used. Redding told the panel, “The trial court acted within its discretion when it admitted the evidence of the glass shards.”

Why it matters: The appeal presses three separate legal points that could affect the conviction: (1) whether evidence of glass fragments found on clothing and in the car made the defendant’s presence at a burglarized home more likely and therefore was admissible; (2) whether the trial court’s flight instruction (identified in argument as TPI 40-218) was warranted where the defense says the defendant left…