Georgia Supreme Court upholds conviction, vacates assault charge in Labor Day 2010 weekend homicide

tchitwood@ledger-enqurier.comSeptember 23, 2013 

Andrew Solomon

The Georgia Supreme Court today upheld Andrew Solomon’s guilty verdict in one of the four Columbus homicides that made headlines in 2010 when they all occurred around the Labor Day weekend.

While upholding Solomon’s conviction and life sentence for fatally shooting 17-year-old Levy Lamont Daniel outside Columbus’ Booker T. Washington Apartments, the justices threw out his conviction and 20-year sentence for aggravated assault, ruling that count should have been merged with the murder charge.

A jury convicted Solomon, then 20 years old, on May 26, 2011. His conviction and life sentence provoked outbursts in the courtroom. One person in the audience shouted “He didn’t do it!” while Solomon repeatedly yelled “I didn’t even do it!”

His trial attorney was Susan Henderson, who afterward said: “I’m absolutely stunned. There was absolutely no evidence. I’ve never seen anything so egregious as this in my career.”

The shooting occurred the night of Sept. 3, 2010, the Friday before Labor Day. Investigators said Daniel was among friends roaming the apartment complex after a concert at the Columbus Civic Center.

Witnesses told police Solomon and Daniel had run-ins before, and that night they had two confrontations: First Daniel pulled a gun on Solomon, but Daniel’s friends persuaded him to put the gun away. Later Solomon, armed with a handgun, confronted Daniel, and shot Daniel in the back as Daniel fled, police said. Daniel ran to Veterans Parkway where he collapsed. He died later at the hospital.

Held in Georgia’s Ware State Prison in Waycross since June 28, 2011, Solomon’s now an indigent defendant whose appeal fell to the Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit’s public defender’s office. Robert Wadkins Sr., the chief public defender, moved for a new trial on June 8, 2012, but Superior Court Judge Bobby Peters denied it that December. Wadkins appealed to the state Supreme Court this past Feb. 21.

In the appeal, Wadkins argued Peters erred in questioning a witness from the bench during Solomon’s trial. Wadkins claimed Peters threatened the witness, Jarvis Bell, who was refusing to answer questions or even confirm the statement he had given police after the shooting.

Peters told Bell that lying under oath could result in a perjury charge: “You get up here and you lie under oath after being sworn in. You won’t tell the truth. That’s perjury. All you’ve got to do is tell the truth, whatever happened, whatever the truth is,” the judge told Bell.

Wadkins called that “a conditional threat” to make a witness alter his testimony. Peters countered he was using the pronoun “you” in a general sense, meaning anyone who lies under oath, not Bell in particular. Peters also specifically asked Bell whether the witness felt comfortable continuing to testify.

“Bell responded that he was not threatened or coerced by any person and that he did feel comfortable in continuing to testify and was not intimidated,” the judge wrote in December 2012, when he denied Wadkins’ motion for a new trial.

The Supreme Court justices did not address that issue, Wadkins said today: "They didn't even mention that in the opinion. They decided on the most narrow grounds that they possibly could."

The high court tossed out the assault conviction and sentence because Solomon's assaulting Daniel with a handgun, resulting in Daniel's death, was the basis of Solomon's murder charge, and those two counts should have been merged, or treated as a single crime, for sentencing, Wadkins said.

Related stories:

Video update: Andrew Solomon convicted in slaying of Levy Lamont Daniel

Appeal claims Judge Peters threatened witness to alter murder testimony

Judge refuses to set bond for Andrew Solomon, charged in Levy Daniel's Sept. 3 homicide

Ledger-Enquirer is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service