Jackson Free Press

Two police officers testified for the defense this morning. First was Sharon Gray, a 27 year veteran of the force who has spent the last five years as a records custodian. Second was Brendan Bell, a narcotics detective. At around 12: 30 p.m., the judge recessed the trial, which is set to resume at 2 p.m.

Gray testified about five police reports the defense submitted as evidence that 1305 Ridgeway has a history of drug arrests. In particular, she testified about a police report from October, 2005, which described an arrest of Evans Welch, and another from Aug. 11, 2006, two weeks before the Ridgeway incident.

The second arrest was of Dwayne Galloway, who was arrested for possession of crack cocaine. Welch was not arrested.

On cross-examination, Senior Assistant DA Stanley Alexander asked Gray whether she had any personal knowledge of the arrests described in the reports, and she said she did not.

Alexander asked Gray how she had come to prepare the reports. Gray answered that Police Chief Shirlene Anderson had told her that former Mayor Dale Danks would call her requesting the reports.

"Do you always take orders from defense attorneys?" Alexander asked.

The defense objected, and Judge Joe Webster sustained.

Brendan Bell testified that JPD's narcotics unit had received complaints about drug activity at 1305 Ridgeway. He said that on Oct. 31, 2005, he made contact with Welch at the front door of the Ridgeway duplex. "There were narcotics visible on the table, on a speaker," Bell said. He arrested Welch.

Bell testified that there were other people in the house at the time he came to the front door who ran out the back. He said that there are routinely spotters in the neighborhood who sometimes use two-way radios to warn others that the police were coming.

"It is my strong opinion that 1305 Ridgeway was used to store and sell crack cocaine, among other drugs," Bell testified. "It is my strong opinion that it was a crack house."

Bell also noted that he worked from 2003 to 2004 at the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotivs, where Frank Melton was his boss.

On cross-examination, Alexander asked Bell about police regulations and whether or not officers could choose to ignore them. Bell said they could not. Alexander asked Bell about suspects who flee the scene. "Why do people run?" he asked.

"For various reasons," Bell replied, and he explained that it was usually because they had warrants for their arrest or drugs on them.

Alexander focused on the fact that Welch had not run the day Bell arrested him. "The fact that Evans Welch didn't run, doesn't that show he didn't think he was doing anything wrong?"

"Not necessarily," Bell replied. Later, Bell clarified that suspects stay put "all the time."

Alexander asked Bell why it had taken him more than a month to file a police report on the Aug. 11, 2006, incident, which was stamped Sept. 6, 2006, after the Ridgeway incident. Bell pointed out that another officer had actually filed the report, so he could not say why it had taken so long.

"Did you find any scales in the house?" Alexander asked.

"No," Bell said, but he explained that not all drug dealers use scales.

On re-direct, Melton attorney Merrida Coxwell asked whether the information in the report about Aug. 11 was accurate, and Bell said it was.

Earlier in the day, Theodora Marks testified outside the presence of the jury. Marks said she was a recovering crack cocaine addict who had direct knowledge of criminal activity by Welch.

Webster warned Marks that she might be incriminating herself, but she said she has been clean and sober for a long time. She was willing to proceed.

Marks said she went to 1305 Ridgeway to purchase crack cocaine many times. "My addiction had escalated. ... I would go over there three or four times a week," she said.

The only time she claimed she bought crack directly from Welch was on July 31, 2005, however. "I pulled up one morning, and there were no runners. Nobody answered the two cell phone numbers I had."

Marks testified that she went to the back of the house, and Welch, who she knew previously, invited her inside the house. "He came out holding up his pants--he had on a new pair of blue jeans," Marks said. "He seemed nervous."

She said Welch asked her to wait in back while he talked to guests in the front. Eventually, he called her forward. "I told him I needed $60 worth," she said. "I handed him the money and purchased the cocaine."

Marks said the Ridgeway duplex did have a reputation as a crack house, a "house of the dead and dying."

On cross-examination, Alexander asked her if she had bought drugs anywhere else. She said she had. He asked her if it was true that Coxwell had spoken to her for the first time on April 22, 2007, and she said it was.

Alexander then asked if Marks had ever spoken to Wright, Recio or Melton about her experiences at Ridgeway.

When she said she had not, Webster ruled that the jury would not hear her testimony because she could not have provided information about 1305 Ridgeway to the defendants.

Coxwell asked if the defense could call retired Drug Enforcement Agent Larry Davidson to the stand to testify as an expert, but Webster said no.

Prosecutors complained that Tammy Callahan was uncooperative during discovery, and Webster told defense attorneys to instruct her to cooperate. Coxwell stepped outside the courtroom for about one minute. When he returned, he said they would not call the witness.

It is unclear whether defense attorneys will call any further witnesses, but it is highly likely that closing statements will resume shortly after the trial resumes.

Previous Comments

ID

127696

Comment

Wonder if this afternoon the defense will try to say that they did it - tore that house up - but it was part of the acceptable practice/procedure because there was no malice? After the defense rests, can prosecution call rebuttal witnesses to talk about police standards and policy/procedure in determining house a structure [house] is demolished?

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T12:00:40-06:00

ID

127697

Comment

Isn't it interesting that melton never ordered or participated in tearing anyone's house up during the time that he was MBN Director? So if this procedure is "part of the acceptable practice/procedure because there was no malice" ...where is the evidence of this? JenniferGriffin, I'm with you on this "wonder."

Author

justjess

Date

2007-04-25T12:19:50-06:00

ID

127698

Comment

Jess- I know two MBN agents who worked under Melton and they were literally ashamed of his refusal to abide by constitutional principles and procedures- Though it did not get publicized, he probably committed worse violations while at MBN

Author

Randy Harris

Date

2007-04-25T12:29:28-06:00

ID

127699

Comment

I would reply Ms Griffin that the act itself of tearing up the house with no crack found and no probable cause for said dealing was malicious and therefore the requirement for the element of intent has been met.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T12:37:40-06:00

ID

127700

Comment

Very interesting that the judge won't let in testimony about drugs that the accused could not have known about. Makes perfect sense, though. Also intriguing that the report about the August "raid" wasn't filed until after the demolition. And that Bell is a former Frank's MBN boy (and city spokesman for a while under Melton). Also that Coxwell was scrambling for witnesses last weekend. They clearly have no case. It'll be interesting to see if the jury understands that. And the jury instructions will be very interesting. I'm still amazed that the prosecution didn't object to Danks telling them in the opening statement that the prosecution must show "evil intent." Can you just mislead a jury like that about legal standards? (Assuming that isn't an actual legal standard.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T13:06:22-06:00

ID

127701

Comment

I'm assuming it will be addressed in closing.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T13:09:53-06:00

ID

127702

Comment

I really wish the lawyers had mics. Like the ones that you wear.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T13:13:11-06:00

ID

127703

Comment

I agree, Kingfish. Just wondering if the defense would go that route seeing the evidence supports it, but of course it wasn't evil - seeing lead defense attorney suggested it all needed to be with evil intention.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T13:13:42-06:00

ID

127704

Comment

Its not a very normal thing to object during an opening statement, even if its a misleading statement.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T13:14:57-06:00

ID

127705

Comment

Danks is stalling again. This might be the precursor for a deal.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T13:18:07-06:00

ID

127706

Comment

They are recessing for the next twenty minutes b/c Stokes is being called as a witness (perhaps Bluntston as well? I think I heard that). Judge said that if the state requested, he could grant a mistrial, and ADA ALexander said no to that. The state is taking 20 minutes to question the two witnesses before they will allow them to be called as witnesses.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T13:19:18-06:00

ID

127707

Comment

I would commend the lead ADA on his not wanting a mistrial, but clearly putting into the record the lack of procedure followed by the defense attorneys. I couldn't see how either DD or Coxwell could say they were ineffective - or could they?

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T13:19:52-06:00

ID

127708

Comment

It appears that the defense's stratagy is to hope the state calls for mistrial from all the surprise witnesses. Though they aren't surprises per say, as they were listed in the paper. Is it because the defense didn't give the prosecution the proper paperwork? Pretty scummy defense team! See the Constitution. Move along....

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T13:22:13-06:00

ID

127709

Comment

Something is not fair when the defense can use these tactics and not get slapped on the wrist for wasting court time, etc...

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T13:24:14-06:00

ID

127710

Comment

I missed all of it, but it looks like the sh1t done hit the fan. Frank is now looking real worried. I see no efforts to hold back a smile anymore. They miscalculated the effect and actuality of their witnesses. Have Recio and Wright turned or hauled ass yet? The chicken are on their way to roost and some lawyer errors and miscalcualtions may be aiding the flight or walk that way. With the state's case having gone so well, I can't see them losing at this point.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T13:27:12-06:00

ID

127711

Comment

Ole Miss Alum, this is for you! Jackson police make 22 arrests in roundup Proceed to laugh at the list of minor to nothing crimes these folks are being "rounded-up" for in Operation Round-Up! They need new PR people!

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T13:29:15-06:00

ID

127712

Comment

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY! If I was ADA, I'd ask, "Does that make it legal then?"

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T13:31:11-06:00

ID

127713

Comment

Pikersam, I'm just amazed they arrested ONE person for crack. Well at least its better than none. Maybe next time they can shoot for two, or hell, maybe even three if they feel lucky. LOL. They really do need some better PR people.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T13:34:10-06:00

ID

127714

Comment

When is the judge going to put an end the defense's overt delay tactics?

Author

motherofthekings

Date

2007-04-25T13:37:42-06:00

ID

127715

Comment

The defense is still skirting delaying. The way Webster is running this thing, he isn't going to let much more of this go on.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T13:39:32-06:00

ID

127716

Comment

Kenny Stokes as a character witness- Oh boy

Author

Randy Harris

Date

2007-04-25T13:43:03-06:00

ID

127717

Comment

Oh I can't wait for Stokes. This is going to be rich.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T13:49:57-06:00

ID

127718

Comment

Ok, its been 20 minutes. Lets get rolling here.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T13:53:12-06:00

ID

127719

Comment

If the defense is seeking sympathy and understanding of why "big pimping and his entourage" committed these acts, they should have kept Mr. Washington, a true giant at evoking emotions and nullification. I can't wait to see how Merrida and Danks do. Revern Horace Buckley married the wife and me. I never joined his church though. Not that crazy about him but he knows lots of people. He once served the Mississippi legislature. Kenny Stokes is my friend. I'll always like him despite his friendship with Frank. He knows lots of people too. Why not calll Tillman, Bluntson, Robert Williams and Louis Armstrong and the Pope?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T13:54:56-06:00

ID

127720

Comment

Brendan Bell really opened up the whupass on the state this morning. And that cross by Stanley was pathetic. Stan should have stuck to collecting child support for DHS. Sorry Melton haters, he's going home. But Faye was lookin real good in the courtroom today.

Author

Jimmy Jam

Date

2007-04-25T13:56:15-06:00

ID

127721

Comment

I translated this thread: translation redneck version

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T13:56:27-06:00

ID

127722

Comment

I dislike Stokes. I do not think he is an honourable man. Period. Ok, we're starting coverage again!

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T13:57:04-06:00

ID

127723

Comment

Stokes is actually going to show up??? OMG.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2007-04-25T13:57:05-06:00

ID

127724

Comment

Jimmy, are you following the same trial I am?

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T13:58:36-06:00

ID

127725

Comment

it's back on at wapt

Author

bobnoxious

Date

2007-04-25T13:58:46-06:00

ID

127726

Comment

I watched Stan cross-examine the freaking redords custodian lol. Every lawyer in that courtroom agreed that that was the most pathetic display act of lawyering they had ever seen. WHO cross-examines the record custodian? I guess we will all be celebrating at Frank's going home party tonight at George Street. And Jam, you are right Bell was a great witness for the state & Stan really blew the cross on that one as well. And I quote "If they have walkie talkies on the street corner does that really mean that they were lookouts?" No, Stan they were calling in an airstrike, come on please.

Author

snowjob

Date

2007-04-25T14:01:20-06:00

ID

127727

Comment

OBJECT!!!!!!!!!! Complaints are HEARSAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T14:02:38-06:00

ID

127728

Comment

Oh...this is the perfect witness to ask about policy and procedure in demolition...he has abandoned houses in his Ward and has consistantly complained about policy and procedure, but would say that he wouldn't just tear down one himself because there is city policy to follow.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T14:06:45-06:00

ID

127729

Comment

Stokes is lying his ass off. Amazing how he can recall such details. and of course he called Blunston! What a joke!

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T14:07:47-06:00

ID

127730

Comment

Stokes is confusing me.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T14:08:31-06:00

ID

127731

Comment

BTW: the neighborhood did not get better as evident in the video report by Bert Case of WLBT taken well after the incident! Come on Stanley, pick this stuff up!

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T14:08:51-06:00

ID

127732

Comment

Danks better do a good redirect because this seems way off.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T14:09:38-06:00

ID

127733

Comment

What the hell is he yapping about? This has nothing to do with Melton. Also, ask Stokes why he doesn't know of other drug houses in his Ward. Several exist! Why Ridgeway?

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T14:10:38-06:00

ID

127734

Comment

All, Brian called in to say that the prosecution lawyers, and apparently the judge, are pretty steamed that the defense did not make witnesses available for discovery interviews prior to the trial. The judge was sympathetic to the prosecution, but told them that they had two choices: to interview the witnesses in the courthouse before they go on, or ask for a mistrial, which he would grant. Talk about the taxpayers getting screwed by the defense on this thing. There is no way that band of high-priced attorneys could not have done discovery right. It does reek of being intentional, no? I hope they get theirs in jury instructions.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T14:12:19-06:00

ID

127735

Comment

Well, stokes should not be up there discussing procedures. Prosecution should've called city attorney to state what the procedures are for demolishing a "crack house".

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T14:13:48-06:00

ID

127736

Comment

What about the guy on a horse dealing dope? How can Ridgeway be a better area now? Did ADA do his homework? He should be raking him over the coals rightnow.

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T14:16:09-06:00

ID

127737

Comment

Stokes can testify because he is charged to see that all city codes are enforced....okay, ADA just got to that.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T14:17:00-06:00

ID

127738

Comment

Stokes doesn't know the code? Stay Happy Ward 3!

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T14:19:35-06:00

ID

127739

Comment

The code was written before Stokes - so it doesn't apply to him! move along....

Author

pikersam

Date

2007-04-25T14:20:20-06:00

ID

127740

Comment

so now you need to hit stokes/melton for not bringing up a proposed ordinance to deal specifically with crack houses if he says there was no way to legally deal with them.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T14:20:44-06:00

ID

127741

Comment

defense did not make witnesses available for discovery interviews prior to the trial. The judge was sympathetic to the prosecution, but told them that they had two choices: to interview the witnesses in the courthouse before they go on, or ask for a mistrial, which he would grant. ahh intentional... yes that would be CLASSIC Danks style. :p

Author

andi

Date

2007-04-25T14:24:58-06:00

ID

127742

Comment

Howard Roark takes the stand. am surprised.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T14:25:01-06:00

ID

127743

Comment

cross of kenny was surprisingly poor.i would have wrapped him in bias(frank owns him) and hit him with lots of crtical leading questions

Author

chimneyville

Date

2007-04-25T14:25:28-06:00

ID

127744

Comment

None of the three defendants are going to testify....

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T14:25:42-06:00

ID

127745

Comment

But, Kingfish...I thought it was the law of the Mayor, regardless of council affirmation! Isn't that what this trial is all about, I mean it wasn't evil intent - the crux of everything. Forget civil protections and the constitution.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T14:26:47-06:00

ID

127746

Comment

was doing something while listening. I was wrong.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T14:27:08-06:00

ID

127747

Comment

cross of kenny was surprisingly poor.i would have wrapped him in bias(frank owns him) and hit him with lots of crtical leading questions Posted by: chimneyville on Apr 25, 07 | 3:25 pm Stokes has enough clout in the area that ADA may have wanted his acknowledgement of the lack of appropriate code procedure without a direct frontal attack

Author

Izzy

Date

2007-04-25T14:28:57-06:00

ID

127748

Comment

I can hardly stand it. I really wish I could get this to play on my computer.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-04-25T14:35:44-06:00

ID

127749

Comment

L.W. The only feed I could get to play on my computer is the link from wjtv for some reason.

Author

Missy

Date

2007-04-25T14:38:32-06:00

ID

127750

Comment

maybe you need different software

Author

Izzy

Date

2007-04-25T14:39:34-06:00

ID

127751

Comment

Missy, the WJTV link is a much lower quality feed and the sound is terrible. But, if that's all you can get then it's better than nothing!

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T14:40:09-06:00

ID

127752

Comment

I'm shocked none of the 3 defendants took the witness stand to tell their sides of the story. Those 3 powerful and innocent fellows could have explained what happened and set themselves free. Sure they don't have to testify and that isn't SUPPOSED to be used against them. I thought Frank, Recio and Wright had some juice. Now I know differently.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T14:40:14-06:00

ID

127753

Comment

Ok... audio from WAPT is back up, feed should be going back into the courtroom shortly.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T14:41:22-06:00

ID

127754

Comment

Agreed, the sound is terrible, but it is better than nothing. I am using a laptop and it probably doesn't have software that is up to par for this type program.

Author

Missy

Date

2007-04-25T14:42:00-06:00

ID

127755

Comment

You know what's funny to me: If the entourage did the right thing, why didn't the defense bring the other officers who were actually on the scene that night?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T14:44:13-06:00

ID

127756

Comment

I think these websites providing feeds maybe are getting bogged down from all the people watching.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T14:44:24-06:00

ID

127757

Comment

They are beginning closing arguments... this should be good.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T14:45:04-06:00

ID

127758

Comment

I think they are wrapping for the day.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T14:46:48-06:00

ID

127759

Comment

damn. no closing.... ahhh.... just dismissed jury for the day... going over instructions for the morning.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T14:49:01-06:00

ID

127760

Comment

Judge overruled another motion from the defense...when are they going to learn?

Author

motherofthekings

Date

2007-04-25T14:49:21-06:00

ID

127761

Comment

good instructions will make or break this one

Author

motherofthekings

Date

2007-04-25T14:50:35-06:00

ID

127762

Comment

Yeah, like: If you believe the men destroyed the duplex without a warrant, you must convict. It's hard to imagine a more apropos instruction. It's remarkable how little the defense had, eh? Do y'all think Melton and the bodyguards—especially the bodyguards—knew how poor their defense was going in?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T14:52:47-06:00

ID

127763

Comment

I don't think they did...it was excruciatingly poor...if I were Wright's mom and Recio's wife, I would pull those young men to the side and strongly advise them to plea...for the sane people, this does not look good for them, but we've seen crazier things happen

Author

motherofthekings

Date

2007-04-25T14:55:11-06:00

ID

127764

Comment

The defense is under no obligation to make its witnesses available to the prosecution for interviews. Witnesses have the right to refuse to talk to the other side (at least in a criminal case). The defense has a duty not to hinder the other side from interviewing witnesses, but has absolutely no duty to produce witnesses for interviews. There was no discovery violation by the defense here.

Author

Jimmy Jam

Date

2007-04-25T14:55:57-06:00

ID

127765

Comment

Jury instructions have to precede closing arguments in order for the jury to retire soon thereafter to deliberate. I hear you Donna about the other police officers. However, what's more telling to me is that James Brown, Maceo and Fred Wesley didn't testify. Frank hasn't cared about any rules or laws before. He has done what he wanted to in the past. Why listen to anyone now? This was their moment in shining glory and they punked out. What wimps! If they luck out and win, I will never respect them.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T14:57:23-06:00

ID

127766

Comment

I think this thing has gotten to the point of no deals. If one was going to happen it would have been this afternoon. I will be very suprised if anybody rolls or cops a plea. Also, Jimmy, just because it may not be a technical violation of discovery rules, it sure was gamesmanship and that is frowned upon. Danks called Stokes as a misdirection witness, but I think the ADA handled it well. Stokes' testimony was irrelevant.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T14:58:45-06:00

ID

127767

Comment

"It's remarkable how little the defense had, eh? Do y'all think Melton and the bodyguards—especially the bodyguards—knew how poor their defense was going in?" Donna, did you sit in on the same trial that I did today. You think that the State did a great job & the defense did a poor one huh? Ok I guess we will just wait & see until tommorrow.

Author

snowjob

Date

2007-04-25T15:00:27-06:00

ID

127768

Comment

I believe the jury will deliberate all day tomorrow and possibly into the evening...what state of mind will Melton be in as he speaks at JSU's History and Philosophy Department's Annual banquet...the theme..."Fruitful Art the Efforts That Reflect Inspiration, Opportunity and Vigilance"...joke...

Author

motherofthekings

Date

2007-04-25T15:00:54-06:00

ID

127769

Comment

Gaius, exactly how has the defense rebutted the evidence the prosecution has put on? They haven't. I would truly say the defense has done a sub-par job.

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T15:01:55-06:00

ID

127770

Comment

I agree, Ole...just one...all we need is one of the five felonies and the city begin the arduous task of finding a viable replacement...refresh and pray we have enough to salvage to move on

Author

motherofthekings

Date

2007-04-25T15:04:19-06:00

ID

127771

Comment

Actually, I think Stokes testimony pointed to procedure, especially since he agreed that the current code would include that a crack house could fit into one of the categories for condemnation and demolition. And while he made a great case for how he's tried pleading for help, he surely didn't act as a councilman and try to have city code approved by the full council as the legislative branch so the executive branch and city staff could act upon accordingly. It's the same justification as the Mayor - someone else is always to blame, I take no personal responsibility. As a councilman, he has the authority, if not duty, to look at code and have some established that looks out for his constituents in his ward, if not every other citizen of Jackson. I'm glad through his testimony the city's code was brought into the equation.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T15:04:41-06:00

ID

127772

Comment

Shaun/Gaius, the defense couldn't put most of its witnesses on the stand. The two police officers weren't on the scene. And Stokes seemed to help the prosecution with his admission that Melton followed none of the procedures. I don't think that guarantees guilt in this case, what with Melton's mythical hero-status and all, but it indicates a really shitty defense. Or, that there wasn't a whole lot they could do in this case but try to throw up smoke and mirrors. And it sounds like the judge is not happy at all that the defense didn't provide discovery. It sound like a big mess. Perhaps by design, but a mess regardless.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T15:04:47-06:00

ID

127773

Comment

Attention Melton-Maniacs: If your prayers are answered and the mayor bites the dust, we will have rid the city of Jackson of one evil man! If, as you suggest, the case is so one-sided...then my guess is that the jury should be back in and at home in time to watch the 5:00 news tomorrow afternoon. Can you just imagine how wonderful this town will be without Melton walking around a free man? I bet crime drops 50% immediately. Bad boy....bad, bad boy.

Author

saintman

Date

2007-04-25T15:05:15-06:00

ID

127774

Comment

There was no discovery violation by the defense here. The judge seemed to think there was enough for a mistrial if the prosecution wanted it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T15:06:00-06:00

ID

127775

Comment

Who will be our next mayor? Anybody knows?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T15:06:04-06:00

ID

127776

Comment

Well Ole Miss Alum, the prosecution would actually have had to put on some credible evidence in order for the defense to rebut it. I think they just spent to much time preparing their cross of the records custodian. Please too all the lawyers reading this blog, how many times have you heard of someone crossing a records custodian. I saw Judge DeLaughter nearly throw a lawyer out of his courtroom for trying to even attempt it.

Author

snowjob

Date

2007-04-25T15:07:05-06:00

ID

127777

Comment

Who will be our next mayor? Anybody knows?....Great question Ray. But, you can believe the wheels are turning even as we speak.

Author

saintman

Date

2007-04-25T15:08:52-06:00

ID

127778

Comment

Frank better go out and get his last ride on that mobile command tonite. He won't have keys after tomorrow. Who will be the next police chief?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T15:10:34-06:00

ID

127779

Comment

Donna, I don't get where you are comiing from with this shitty defense theory. I sat in the courtroom while Stan asked the records custodian about marijuana being at the house, which opened the door to allow Coxwell to begin questioning the custodian about the crack in the house on re-direct, basically confirming that it was a crack house, coupled with Bell's testimony. If Stan had just got up & said "No questions" (regarding the Custodian) than Coxwell would never have gotten the chance to beat it in to the jurors minds that this was a crack house.

Author

snowjob

Date

2007-04-25T15:12:09-06:00

ID

127780

Comment

Do you think that's true, Ray? Give us your take on how the trial went in a serious way. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the attorneys, Ray?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T15:12:25-06:00

ID

127781

Comment

It sound like a big mess. Perhaps by design, but a mess regardless......I agree Ladd. The post mortem of this trial will be fascinating.

Author

saintman

Date

2007-04-25T15:13:03-06:00

ID

127782

Comment

Interim Mayor: Marshand Crisler

Author

Ole Miss Alum

Date

2007-04-25T15:13:23-06:00

ID

127783

Comment

Who will be our next city administrator? Chief counsel of the legal department? Don't the defendant desrve some time in jail for making us endure all this with the evidence of guilt being so opened and shut, Justjess?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T15:13:47-06:00

ID

127784

Comment

You do make a good point, Ray. One of the main needs on the table now is a clean slate of city managers. That is just as important as a new mayor. What a lot we have down there right now. And that starts with Robert Walker.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T15:17:02-06:00

ID

127785

Comment

I didn't see the whole thing. I saw Stanley do an opening and cross on Kenny only. I didn't see or hear the other lawyers do anything except openings. Therefore, it would be unfair for me to try to grade them. Stanley has impressed me. If he does a good, powerful and overwhelming closing I think he'll win. Judging from the opening, I think he's capable of doing such closing argument. The reason Danks told the jury that "what lawyers say isn't evidence" was because he recognized that Stanley's opening was powerful and persuasive. He needed to make the jury ignore or de-emphasize it. If the defense can get a jury instruction saying evil intent or motive is a must or necessary element to proving the case they may have a decent chance at pulling it off. Otherwise, I think the facts have screwed them. Seems to me they will be begging for sympathy and nullification in a mighty way. However, there is a court instruction that says sympathy, conjecture, surmise and so on are impermissible and can't be considered. If I were Stanley I'd make a big thing of this. I can't believe these fellows risked jail with these facts. We will see whether these women can be played.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-25T15:25:42-06:00

ID

127786

Comment

Donna, from the testimony it appeared that each "real" cop that arrived on the scene was sent away by Frank and his boys.

Author

thetruth

Date

2007-04-25T15:26:01-06:00

ID

127787

Comment

While it would be a great to kill two birds with one stone, I don't see a huge house-cleaning of the city department heads, at least until a special election is held and depending on who wins. But we will survive.

Author

golden eagle '97

Date

2007-04-25T15:52:46-06:00

ID

127788

Comment

Izzy, I think you're right that Alexander may have taken it easy on Stokes so he wouldn't alienate the jury. He still made three important points: a) Stokes' agenda item was about the Ridgeway area, not 1305 specifically, as he earlier claimed, b) there is an established procedure for demolishing houses, and it was not followed, and c) drugs continue to be a problem in the neighborhood.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2007-04-25T16:04:15-06:00

ID

127789

Comment

As for discovery issues, in some cases, the defense lawyers did not even make names and addressed available, according to the prosecution. Also, Alexander cited a rule that says any transcripts of statements made to defense lawyers must be shared with prosecutors. Regardless, the judge was clearly exasperated with the defense lawyers on that score. In general, I would say that he is exasperated with both legal teams. He said a couple funny things today. One was along the lines of "All this flim-flam between the lawyers isn't helping." The other was, "I'm a judge, not a referee." I think he's going to want a week off after this is done.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2007-04-25T16:08:15-06:00

ID

127790

Comment

It sounds like the prosecution is set up for a helluva closer if they can pull it off. As for discovery, I've suspected all along that the defense basically has nada and didn't want to admit that until they had to. That way, they could try it in the media, hoping to taint the jury pool, ignoring the gag order on talking about the case, as when Danks told WJTV about the children that supposedly did drugs there. It really seems like this kind of crap would really annoy a judge.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T16:30:17-06:00

ID

127791

Comment

I'm proud of the prosecution in this case. Did anyone notice it was two attorneys against five or six defense attorneys. Isn't one of the black guys running for head DA.

Author

Roc

Date

2007-04-25T19:19:29-06:00

ID

127792

Comment

Yeah, I think the DA's office has done a great job. If FM is not convicted of at least one charge, there is definitely some foul stench in the wind.

Author

kdbstlrfan1

Date

2007-04-25T19:43:23-06:00

ID

127793

Comment

I am thinking they are going to pull an intent issue. Remeber (for those of us sick enough to get through law school) burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another (usually in the nightime) with the intent to commit a felony (or larceny). My guess is they rail on closing that there was no intent to commit a felony, just stop drugs. They may even claim justification, mistake, etc. This is not to exonerate the actions, just a guess at strategy. Defense doesn't have that much. The defendants not taking the stand was a wise move. The jury may infer what they will, but subjecting a defendant to cross if you are weak.... that is malpractice. Any decent procecutor would have destroyed all three with details and inconsitancies. Plus, do you know how hard it is for three people to remember the same story under cross? They would have been shredded. AGamma627 AGamma62

Author

AGamm627

Date

2007-04-25T21:49:32-06:00

ID

127794

Comment

I agree AGamm627. I wanted them to take the stand just to see the ass-whupping Stanley would have given each.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-04-26T07:47:56-06:00

ID

127795

Comment

Ray, it never had a chance of happening because they are cowards. Amazing how when it's not FM on the line, he'll do or say anything, but when his ox is being gored, he doesn't want any part of it. If he's not convicted, I hope the people of Jackson see him for what he is. Nothing.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-26T07:50:43-06:00

ID

127796

Comment

They are cowards? uh no its just a good defense strategy not to put the defendants on the stand, especially in a case like this where the facts are clearly against them & you are going for nullification (i.e. we all now Frank is guilty but he is going for the emotional appeal to the jury). It would have been the worst defense call for Frank to talk the stand. Now, coupled with the State's poor performance, they have ensured his acquittal or a hung jury.

Author

snowjob

Date

2007-04-26T08:42:39-06:00