Gwinnett Superior Court convicted Adam Wells of armed robbery, but Mr. Wells believed that the court and his counsel prevented him from receiving fair treatment. He felt that the court allowed a biased juror to remain in the jury, concerned that she had formed an opinion about his guilt prior to hearing any evidence. The defendant also believed that his attorney should have attempted to plea to lesser charges, which prompted Mr. Wells to file for a new trial.
During the hearing for the new trial, Adam Wells’ lawyer claimed that, as part of a mutually agreed-upon trial strategy, he approached the trial with an “all-or-nothing defense.” Mr. Wells, therefore, would not have been able to request a lesser charge when his defense was predicated upon not having participated in the crime.
The Court of Appeals reviewed Mr. Wells’ case and supported the trial court’s conviction. The Court evaluated the questionable juror’s responses and determined that her opinion was not so fixed that she was incapable of following the trial court’s instructions. The Court reviewed his claims for a new trial and supported the decision against it based on the attorney’s testimony.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s armed robbery conviction of Adam Wells. His complaints were deemed unfounded.