Supreme Court upholds death sentence for killer

The state Supreme Court has upheld three death sentences for David Lynn Jordan, who shot his estranged wife and two other people to death at a state highway garage in Jackson more than five years ago.
Tennessee’s highest court affirmed a Court of Criminal Appeals decision to uphold Jordan’s convictions and death sentences, and set his execution date for Sept. 27, 2011.
Jordan killed Donna Jordan, state Agriculture Department worker Jerry Hopper and David Gordon on Jan. 11, 2005.
Jordan first shot his estranged wife and Hopper, who was in Donna Jordan’s office at a Tennessee Department of Transportation garage in Jackson.
Jordan left the office and was confronted by Gordon, a motorist who had followed Jordan to the facility after Jordan ran Gordon off the road. Jordan removed a high-powered rifle from his truck and shot Gordon 13 times.
Police arrested Jordan near the scene. The rifle, a shotgun and two pistols were still in his small red pickup truck.
Two other people in the garage were wounded during the shooting spree.
The Supreme Court ruling also included interesting commentary on one aspect of the state’s rules of evidence. In an unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Cornelia A. Clark, the Supreme Court addressed for the first time whether Tennessee’s rule of witness sequestration applies to capital sentencing trials.
Under the rule, witnesses expected to testify in a trial are not allowed in the courtroom to avoid being influenced by testimony of other witnesses.
Before the trial, Jordan’s lawyer sought to exempt Jordan’s family members from the rule so they could attend Jordan’s trial and testify at his sentencing hearing. The trial court denied the request. That forced relatives to choose between attending the trial and testifying on behalf of their son. Jordan’s parents chose to attend his trial, which kept them from testifying at the sentencing hearing.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court had made a mistake in strictly applying the witness rule. The decision deprived Jordan from presenting mitigating evidence at sentencing, the Supreme Court ruled, adding that rules of evidence are only guidelines, rather than “mandatory strictures.’’
However, the Supreme Court stopped short of ordering a new sentencing hearing because the jury heard from other witnesses that provided the “essence’’ of the testimony Jordan’s parents would have given.