Uncle Bennie weighed in on the public fight between Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill and the Hinds County Public Defender's Office. Judge Weill held Hinds County Public Defenders Michelle Purvis and Greg Spore in contempt of court last week. Purvis and her employees packed the courtroom and then held a rally outside the courthouse in front of the media. Uncle Bennie asked the Justice Department to investigate. This drama will probably continue for quite some time. However, there is a case that provides a good look at both sides of the dispute.
A Hinds County Grand Jury indicted Victor Austin for domestic violence on November 20, 2014. The indictment accuses him of trying to strangle the mother of his child on September 2, 2014. He was arraigned December 17, 2014. Judge Weill appointed attorney Clayton Lockhart to represent Austin. Mr. Lockhart has practiced law for nearly twenty years but does not work for the public defender. However, the docket in the court file states that both Mr. Lockhart and public defender Alison Kelly represent Austin as she asserted that she was representing Austin. At this point, it seems simpler to publish the relevant documents in the file and a synopsis of each one filed in chronological order.
Motion for Recusal
Ms. Purvis filed a motion for recusal on January 20, 2015. She makes the following arguments in her motion:
*Judge Weill was appointing attorneys to represent defendants even though lower courts had allegedly appointed the public defender to handle the representation of said defendants.
*Judge Weill made disparaging remarks about the public defender in a letter to the Hinds County Board of Supervisors. The letter notified the board he would appoint private lawyers to represent defendants.
*Judge Weill did not recuse the public defender and appointed the private lawyers where no conflict existed.
*Judge Weill held no hearing on disqualifying the public defender nor did he show cause. Ms. Purvis argues this is contrary to the law.
*The legal relationship is between the defendant and the attorney and not "between the defendant and the court."
*The case should be transferred to Senior Ciruit Judge Tomie Green for reassignment.
Judge Weill's Letter to Board of Supervisors on January 15
*The court appoints counsel if defendant is indigent.
*Ms. Kelly is (allegedly) engaged in an unauthorized practice of law while working as a full-time public defender. The law forbids such work while employed as a public defender or prosecutor on a full-time basis. She has a private law practice registered to her home in Reunion. He claims county employees must live in Hinds County.
*Ms. Kelly is the public defender assigned to his courtroom and acts as co-counsel for every indigent defendant even if the case is assigned to another public defender.
Judge Weill's Letter to Michelle Purvis on January 15
*Judge Weill reports alleged "multiple violations" of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers by Ms. Kelly.
*Ms. Kelly is allegedly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
*Judge Weill made similar complaints in an earlier letter and Ms. Purvis has done nothing about the "problem."
*Ms. Kelly allegedly "impermissibly conferred with a state's witness during a short court recess which interrupted his trial testimony. Her explanation to the court was that she had a "momentary lapse of whatever" (No Pink Floyd jokes, please.) when she told the witness "I'm sorry I just - I don't mean to be a bitch, I have a job to do. I'm just trying to save Mario's life."
*Ms Kelly quoted "exclusively from one appellate case" to support her position in a motion. However, the did not tell the court that the Court of Appeals decision was overturned by the Mississippi Supreme Court on the "very issue cited by Ms. Kelly's motion." Judge Weill called it a "misleading litigation practice." Such action is allegedly unethical in Judge Weill's opinion.
Motion for Stay of proceedings and request for hearing filed on January 28.
*Ms. Purvis and Ms. Kelly ask Judge Weill to halt the proceedings and hold a hearing on the motion to recuse.
Opinion & Order denying motion for recusal and motion for clarification on representation.
*The court found "upon inquiry" that Austin was indigent and deserved appointed counsel.
*The court appointed Clayton Lockhart to represent Austin. Mr. Lockhart is the only attorney appointed by the court to represent Austin. The Circuit Clerk's docket sheet "incorrectly lists Ms. Kelly" as one of the lead attorneys.
*A review of the electronic docket sheet in MEC shows that no one "since indictment" has been appointed to represent the defendant "nor does it show that Ms. Kelly has filed a formal entry of appearance."
*The court is "unaware" of any proceeding action concerning the case that may or m ay not have occurred at the municipal or county court level (initial appearances, preliminary hearings, bond status hearings.*).
*The court thus only sees in the file an indictment and capias ( I can testify to this practice through experience. The first documents in the vast majority of the court files I have examined are the indictment and the capias.)
*The circuit judge is thus provided hardly any information at arraignment if the defendant was found indigent by a lower court. Thus the court follows the law in appointing counsel after determining indigence.
*The court appoints the public defender if defendant is indigent and orders the public defender to submit an entry of appearance if Ms. Harris "delegates" said representation to an assistant public defender.
*Prior practices by the public defender made it "impossible" for the court to determine which public defender was assigned to a defendant and thus "made effective docket management impossible."
*Ms. Kelly and another public defender, Jamiel Wiggins, would "work on the cases of their own choosing and in matters where the other attorney was designated as the attorney of record."
*One public defender told the court administrator that the Judge's practice of assigning a specific public defender was "not binding" and that the HCPDO would assign an attorney after arraignment. She told the administrator to email the Public Defender's office to learn who the assigned public defender was.
*The administrator complied with this demand but "often did not receive the necessary information." The information that was sent was often "incomplete or confusing." The court stated such "incomplete and inaccurate" information made it hard to "communicate with parties" about their cases.
*Public Defender Mike Henry asked the court to stop assigning cases to specific public defenders. Judge Weill did so but required the assistant public defenders file an entry of appearance so the court would know who actually represented the defenant.
*Ms. Purvis changed her policy in September 2014. She would only allow public defenders to represent defendants if the public defender was appointed by Judge Weill before arraignment.
*Ms. Kelly "filed two motions" on behalf of Austin several weeks after the appointment of Mr. Lockhart.
*The letter to Ms. Purvis was marked "confidential". Ms. Purvis and Ms. Kelly included the letter in the motion for recusal despite this designation.
*"The HCPDO has refused to participate in the Court's arraignment process since September 15."
*Ms. Kelly's motion for clarification was the first time the court was notified that anyone had represented the defendant in lower court. "No portion" of any proceedings in the municipal or county courts are a part of the 'record in the case' in circuit court."
*All counsel but Clayton Lockhart are formally removed from the case.
*Ms. Kelly was not court-appointed counsel for Austin and thus lacked any standing to file motion for recusal.
*"Ms. Kelly's repeated refusal to comply with the rules of court and the rules of her employment indicates that she is more concerned with furthering her personal interests over the interest of her clients." Gentlemen, I think war has been declared.
*I think this might be the crux of the whole problem. The Judge gets the indictment and capias. That is all that he sees in the file. A lower court may appoint a public defender but said appointments are not in the file per se. Thus the public defender appears in court to represent the defendant but the judge has no order or formal entry of appearance by the public defender. Question for the lawyers: Could they both be right?
Page 2: Motion for recusal
Page 7: Judge Weill letter to Hinds County Board of Supervisors
Page 9: Judge Weill letter to Michelle Purvis
Page 10: motion for stay of proceedings and request for hearing by Ms. Purvis
Page 15: Opinion & order denying motion for recusal and motion for clarification on representation
Page 44: Docket
Page 47: Emails
Page 52: Motion for reconsideration
Page 58: Order denying motion
55 comments:
I generally like Judge Weill. But I am not sure about the "you have to live in Hinds County to be a public defender in Hinds County" assertion. Alternatively, if it is the rule, I am unsure how vigorously it is enforced.
The first question should be: "What does the client want?" Has anyone asked him? I've seen no indication that he has ever been queried. As an indigent defendant he may not be entitled to just anyone he wants, but in this case he has a real choice and his wishes should prevail absent some compelling reason to the contrary.
There is a residency requirement (or was) that is not strictly enforced. Regardless, I think that is an issue for the Board of Supervisors, not Weill
Uncle Bennie NEEDS to stick with kissing up to Obama.
KF,
You are correct that there not an order from the lower courts appointing the public defender's office but by custom they are appointed to represent defendants at preliminary hearings. Weill knows this and to say that he is "unaware" is just disingenuous.
The real issue is not whether they are appointed in the lower court or not but why Weill is appointed private counsel if no conflict exists in the public defenders office? That doesn't make any sense.
74 comments on the earlier post. Only 5 here. What happened?
Uh-oh PD's office - looks like actual facts are starting to surface and I bet these are just the beginning. I thought one of your main issues was Weill's appointment of "inexperienced" attorneys - this one case alone Weill's appointee had 20 years experience - did the PD's office want 25 years or did you "just a momentary lapse of "whatever"" or were you being disengenuous in your previous position? KF - in answer to your question as why there were only 5 comments now - I suspect it's because the same PD's that were smearing Weill are now having to restrategize now that inconvenient facts are beginning to bubble up. Stay tuned folks.
Lockhart started his career working in the prosecutor's office for the city of Jackson.
Might be a little tl/dr for working folks. I suspect comments will pick up after people get home from work. There was a lot of info in this post.
I think IHL bailed out Weill for the time being.
KF, I didn't comment on this post for several reasons, starting with the title. The title includes "we report, you decide" but there appeared to be a slant in the post. You state that Judge Weill held the PD's in contempt, while the PD's packed the courtroom and rallied outside in front of the media. I think that imagery essentially sets up the PD's as troublemakers. Although he inserted himself into this fiasco with his press release, the mention of "Uncle Bennie" seemed intended to rile up the posters like 12:11 pm. Didn't feel like dealing with them.
I was also curious out of the huge number of cases on Weill's docket, how you came upon this case as an exemplar? I couldn't think of a clever way to suggest that it came from one side.
I also thought it silly to suggest that Weill wouldn't know that PD's had been appointed at preliminary hearings but didn't think it was worth arguing over.
The combination of Monday morning and the above stated issues with this post made me not want to do internet battle with the experts of all things that normally post here.
(I can admit that my biases as a member of the Hinds County bar probably affected my interpretation of this post, so you can take it with a grain of salt.)
Was Clayton the one who represented Mike Brown?
That is exactly what happened. He held them in contempt. They DID hold a rally outside for the media and Bennie did ask for a Justice Department investigation.
You know what is funny? Worst case scenario, the defendant has too many attorneys. Sounds like he is really being deprived of his rights.
If Weill screwed up, don't worry, the Commission and Supreme Court will slap him down.
But the taxpayers get screwed when he appoints outside counsel who aren't pro bono. Weill's a conservative. One would think he'd be against wasting county dollars.
Seriously, you think the Commission or the Supreme Court will slap him down?! He's not a justice court judge so they will do nothing!
Given that the MSSC has been sitting on all this for a month now without even directing Weill to respond, it doesn't seem they have slapping on the agenda.
Also, the justice-court-judge comment @ 4:36 is cruel, but accurate.
March 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM = LOYAL JJ reader and 'Grain of Salt' HOFer
Hinds County Circuit Judges rarely, if ever, see the actual clerk's file, certainly not at arraignment. They get all their information from the computer.
ALL indigent defendants are represented in Circuit Court unless there is a conflict from multiple defendants. In that situation, private counsel is appointed. That's very routine.
Weill has no authority to sua sponte [on his own motion] disqualify the PD Office without evidence there is a conflict. Period.
The contempt is an ancillary issue. The Judge is 100% correct based those two lawyers langue in court and their behavior in court. I've heard no word of them doing anything but paying the fines. An appeal would be a waste of time and money.
btw, I can't stand Weill.
This was the only case I came across that presented both sides of the controversy. The Judge explains his side, Ms. Harris and her employees explain their side.
I live in Hinds County, and I don't need my tax dollars wasted on a private appointed attorney when I'm already paying for a very competent public defender's office. Weill is not the only judge who thinks he's the whole judicial system. Everybody plays a part, and Weill needs to let the Public Defender's office do what they are paid to do.
Pissing match. I hope Weil wins.
At least Weil can form a complete sentence. These PD's need a grammar course. Can anyone write? Too many professionals in Jackson write like they speak and that is not good. JSU to blame or tougaloo? Ever heard of proof reading?
Yeah 5:37 why don't you start proof reading with your post. It is WEILL.
Tougaloo has a capital T.
Pot meet kettle.
"Incompetent an non law abiding"
Oh snap! He told her. I hope there is video... cause I bet you she is in there "cutting up". And all those PD's know Weil is telling the truth.
Ding, ding, ding - we have a WINNAH! And the new spin as to why Weill is wrong (now that the facts are submarining the old theories) is that "it's too expensive to have competent, ethical counsel for an indigent defendant" AND thank you PD's office for playing "WHINE ABOUT WEILL"!
... I don't need my tax dollars wasted on a private appointed attorney when I'm already paying for a very competent public defender's office.
So tell us how you know, and how you measure, that the PD's office is competent.
[AND] when it comes authority appeals as a HindsCo taxpayer you better be ready to pony up exactly how much $$$ you pay.
Why not remove that Kelly attorney from these cases? Seems simple unless someone is trying to harass Weill. Wasn't there a time when they were trying to take criminal cases from Weill. That didn't work. Maybe it's just more of the same bs? Keeping a psycho attorney in his court on almost every case could be an attempt to bully him. Why bully the honest judge? Is he the only republican judge there? What gives?
5:51pm
Please check US News & World Reports rankings.
tougaloo is not ranked. The lower case t is correct.
I'm not saying its a bad school. It's just relatively unheard of outside of Mississippi. Sorry.
"Weill's a conservative. One would think he'd be against wasting county dollars."
Or, maybe he's interested in justice (shock! horror!) or maybe he's interested in getting value for money - seriously, are you saying McDonald's is as good as Char or Ruth's Chris or Shapley's? After all, it's all meat, isn't it? Maybe he was trying to ensure the defendant got a good defense against some serious charges.
Thank you @ 6:17 - you NAILED IT! AMEN!!
Shorter 6:17 - why not let a judge veto the PD's choice of attorney, effectively putting himself in charge of that office?
If a judge had the effrontery to bar a Butler Snow att'y from his courtroom, everyone would be falling over themselves to impeach the judge. (And the MSSC would have jumped in faster than a ninja in a knife fight.)
I have been in front of Weill and he is not interested in justice. Only convictions. Ask the JPD cop tried by fat Stan how he feels about weill's "justice". It might as well be justice court - it ain't justice and it ain't court.
Gotta love strings live this. Only proves that Uncle Ben's exhortations are pure bullshit. He's only begging suckers to put their cash in so the money players can take their out. PONZI 101.
Considering how f*$ked UP Hinds is I'll take convictions over justice 24/7/365!!!
8:22 p.m. You feel that way only because it's not you with the conviction instead of the justice.
@7:43 - sorry your were convicted in front of Weil - what'd you do?
@7:32 - I agree, putting Weill in charge of the PD's office instead of Green would definitely straighten up a few things.
As a criminal defense lawyer, I love when idiots like 8:22 come into my office because they or momma or little Jimmy have gotten in trouble and, you know, they are different because, well reasons. I can charge them a butt load of money and yet they still don't understand why people like Weill think they are automatically guilty simply because they've been charged. People like 8:22 are special because, you know, they're supposed to have due process and innocent till proven guilty an all those rights they're supposed to have but don't get because they're in front of Weill. I've represented quite a few people exactly like you 8:22 and the only person who thinks you're special while you're in front of Weill is your momma. To him, you are guilty simply because you've been charged and you are the scum of the earth.
I'm loving all these comments about the MSSC - ITS A CONSPIRACY - WEILL HAS THE ENTIRE MSSC UNDER HIS THUMB! Maybe he's actually Satan and has them under his spell as his Earthly minions commanding that they do his bidding! Is he old enough to have been the man on the "grassy knoll" - wait maybe he's just faking his age so no one will suspect him!
No, maybe it's just that the MSSC is trying to take its time to make a well-reasoned decision!
Will Bennie throw a fish fry for a "bennyfit"? Wonder if a white congressman called for an investigation of such a local matter, what would be said? Also, if we need some investigation, by all means, let's do some investigating. Tyrone's valentines billboard fund, jpd, hinds board of supervisors, Kenneth, Loreta, Benny his own damned self...also maybe they could finally let us know "who kilt da mayor"(the r is silent).
I practice in front of Weill and take appointed criminal cases. He is not interested in justice. He is a tyrant. I've been on the defense side of criminal cases where the State has admitted to the judge that they could not prove their case and wanted to dismiss the charges and he refused their request. How's that for neutral and detached? Allison Kelly is one of the best advocates I have seen. She, unlike most of her attorney peers, does not need that thankless job to support herself she just believes every defendant should be zealously represented. Judge Weill hates that.
I give up - who is "fat Stan" and what does he have to do with this thread?
9:00, 7:43 here, good response. I definitely left myself open with that one. Can't wait till your sitting in my office or some other high priced criminal defense attorney's office talking about how you or momma or little jimmy are different because, well reasons. And yes, I'm also 9:09. When you've hired Butler Snow or some nice suit wearing criminal defense lawyer who lied to you and told you you're special and they were going to get you off, what are you going to do when Weill says you can't have your lawyer because, well reasons. You'll be the first one crying due process because this time it happened to you and not some poor schmuck who was too broke to hire an attorney.
MSSC and well reasoned decision?! Go google oxymoron 9:20.
There should not be incompetent lawyers practicing law.
First the law schools should weed out the incompetent.
And, if the law schools miss anyone who can memorize words but not comprehend those words , The Bar Exam should be getting rid of those.
And, if a lawyer becomes incompetent , the Bar should deal effectively with those lawyers.
We should add additional qualifications for judges. They should have to pass a Procedures exam and a psychiatric exam.
Anyone arguing that Weill's concern is the criminal defendants has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Weill is the worst.
8:08pm
Based on what?
9:57pm
That makes no sense. If you hired an attorney you are not assigned one by the pd. Weill complained about an attorney in the pd office being incompetent.
Not that I agree with this statement, but perhaps Weill is just trying to balance out what's going on in the other judge's courtrooms.
Having Clayton Lockhart for an attorney is like having no attorney at all.
The Constitution guarantees that a criminal defendant has "the right to effective assistance of counsel". The trial judge is responsible to insure that this right is protected and enforced. All judges have the inherent right to control their courtrooms by making decisions and imposing rules that are "rationally based" towards operating his/her courtroom in such a manner that he deems to be the most efficient for the administration of justice. If he finds/believes that any attorney in any case is unable or unwilling to abide by the court's rules and procedures, the Judge has the inherent right to discipline and even exclude that lawyer from
handling any cases in his/her
courtroom. (One particular judge in another part of the state once banned a certain Assistant District Attorney from his/her courtroom because the Judge allegedly caught the ADA making material misrepresentations to the court pertaining to pending cases.) Since the HCPDO disagrees with Judge Weill, the remedy is to therefore file a Petition for Mandamus before the MSSC in order to allow that Court to decide whether Judge Weill's decision has a "rational basis". If the Supreme Court agrees with Judge Weill, then case closed. If the Supreme Court is of the opinion that Judge Weill's treatment of the HCPDO is not
"rationally based", then the MSSC must issue a Writ of Mandamus which orders/directs Judge Weill what to do in the operation of his court that it determines to be rational and proper under the circumstances. On the other hand, since it has been alleged that there has been no show cause/due process hearing on the matter, the MSSC can always remand the matter back to the trial court for a full evidentiary hearing with testimony and other evidence to be produced.
Thank you Saltwater - that's the most objective procedural analysis I've seen in this whole circus. So bottom line is the judge rules, if the PD doesn't think he's right, the PD goes to the MSSC (which the PD has done), then the MSSC decides if he is right or isn't and directs him accordingly. So can ANYONE tell us why the PD's office basically stormed Weil's courtroom and made a**es of themselves when the final authority has yet to decide who is right and who is wrong?
Sorry Saltwater but we may need your rational wisdom again.
"So can ANYONE tell us why the PD's office basically stormed Weil's courtroom and made a**es of themselves when the final authority has yet to decide who is right and who is wrong?"
Because Weill never gave Kelly or the PDO a hearing.
I am not sure I agree w/ Saltwater that any judge can permanently exclude any att'y any time. Att'y discipline is for the Miss. S. Ct. An att'y can be sanctioned for particular misconduct in a courtroom, but a ban would seem to require some sort of due process ... preferably in front of another judge.
@2:13 - I appreciate your comment, but can you tell me SPECIFICALLY what motion was pending before Weill that Kelly or the PD's office was entitled to a hearing on where Weill denied the hearing? I'm not just being rhetorical because I keep seeing opinions in this thread about someone being "denied a hearing", but "hearings" are only when there is a pending motion before the court AND judges rule ALL THE TIME "on the pleadings" without a formal hearing. ?
3:35 - if the judge wants to sanction an att'y, the hearing isn't in response to a motion, but rather he issues a "show cause order" - show me cause why I shouldn't sanction you. Then the att'y has notice & opportunity to be heard.
But the good cause for not appointing Kelly was not a contempt finding, most of which do require a hearing. It was a finding per the statute that allows the judge to appoint another non-public defender attorney upon a showing of good cause in the trial court. The statute says nothing about requiring a hearing, a show cause notice or anything else they are crowing about.
And, after reading the long attachments to the pending appeals, it seems that Weill was trying to be the bigger person by filing his good cause under seal so not to embarass Kelly, and now Kelly is taking advantage of that gesture of kindness. I bet there is much more to this than we will know for a long long time.
@4:55 - please cite a specific statute or uniform rule that states a judge must issue a "show cause" prior to sanctioning an attorney for courtroom misconduct - I've been practicing for well over 20 years in state and federal courts in 3 states - I've seen a few attorneys get sanctioned for misconduct during the course of a proceeding and have never seen any judge issue a "show cause order", then have a hearing and then issue a sanction. Instead, the sanction is issued and then the attorney can appeal if they want. This is actually the most logical solution; otherwise, the judge would have to stop in the middle of a court proceeding and start another whole proceeding against the attorney and then rule in the attorney matter, then reconvene the original proceeding. One of the reasons for this is likely that attorneys are ALL officers of the court and, thus held to a higher standard than the general public. A "show cause" is issued when someone disobeys a previously issued court order such as failing to appear for a proceeding where you were subpoenaed to appear. Again, if you can cite a specific rule or statute to support your position I'll be glad to learn something new - that's one of the great things about being an attorney, I am constantly learning things I wasn't previously aware of.
Post a Comment