U.S. Supreme Court will not review St. Clair capital murder case • Alabama Reflector (original) (raw)
6:59
News Story
The defendant in the case claimed that a judge should have granted a change of venue.
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday refused to hear a death penalty case out of Alabama that raised questions about the rights of the accused and the public’s right to know.
Justices denied a writ of certiorari filed by Michael Dale Iervolino, convicted of capital murder in 2021 for his role in the death of Nicholas Sloan Harmon. Iervolino argued that the court’s refusal to change the venue amid the publicity around the case violated his Sixth Amendment right guaranteeing a fair trial.
“In light of the unique circumstances of this case, the failure to change the venue of Mr. Iervolino’s capital trial was unconstitutional,” said Randall Susskind in the petition, deputy director of the Equal Justice Initiative serving as Iervolino’s attorney during the appeals process.
A message was sent to Susskind on Monday seeking comment.
Harmon was the son of St. Clair County District Attorney Lyle Harmon. Nicholas Harmon was found dead in an automobile in 2019. The investigating officer found a single bullet and said the back driver’s side window had been shattered. A message seeking comment was left Monday with the St. Clair District Attorney’s Office.
Iervolino was arrested that evening for possession of a stolen white truck, which was found in connection with the incident involving Nicholas Harmon’s murder. Iervolino was charged with two counts of capital murder, the first for causing someone’s death in a vehicle and a second for theft and breaking and entering a vehicle.
Iervolino pleaded guilty to theft and breaking and entering, but not guilty to the capital murder charge.
Lyle Harmon and local judges recused themselves from the case. A judge and a prosecution team from Talladega County took their place. Iervolino’s counsel sought to have the case moved to a different venue in light of the relationship between the victim and the district attorney, and because “the case had received widespread and prejudicial publicity.”
The trial court judge rejected the defense counsel’s request but left open the possibility of reconsidering the decision after jury selection.
During jury selection, several individuals with the potential responsibility for deciding Iervolino’s fate told the court of the extensive publicity that case had garnered, according to the petition.
“The voir dire responses indicated that, in addition to being covered extensively by the media, the case was a topic of discussion in the offices, schools, and churches, and around the dinner tables, of the St. Clair County community,” the petition states.
The trial court judge then denied defense counsel’s motion for a change of venue. The jury found Iervolino guilty of the two counts of capital murder, but he was ultimately found guilty of a single count of firing from a vehicle after the trial court vacated the charge of firing into a vehicle during a later hearing.
Iervolino’s counsel challenged the lack of a change of venue with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled against Iervolino, citing Luong v. State, a 2013 case in which the Alabama Supreme Court reversed an Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ruling that publicity before a murder trial in Mobile County should have led to a change in venue.
Susskind argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Court of Criminal Appeals should have incorporated additional factors that weighed in Iervolino’s favor, not only the amount of media coverage the case received.
Susskind claims the state appeals court should have based their decision on Rideau v. Louisiana, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that he said had similarities to Iervolino’s case.
The defense attorney also argued that the news coverage of the case “contained blatantly prejudicial information” that stressed Harmon’s relationship to the St. Clair D.A. and spoke of Iervolino’s criminal history.
As is customary, the U.S. Supreme Court did not issue an opinion on why it denied the grant.
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.