The ruling literally just came down.The Court hammered Judge Weill pretty hard but refused to recuse him from the 55 cases as requested by the Office of the Hinds County Public Defender.
*All 55 defendants were represented by the Public Defender. Ms. Purvis argued they were appointed in lower courts. However, Judge Weill said there was nothing in the file to indicate they were represented by counsel and thus required a new finding of indigence. The Court overruled his argument and said they were represented by counsel when they appeared in his court. It would appear Ms. Purvis was right and the Court slammed the Judge on this point.
*The Court said he could remove the public defender if he found a conflict of interest or "other good cause" to be shown. The Court said Judge Weill's opposition to Public Defender Allison Kelly representing defendants in his court was based on his view that she was incompetent and had "committed incidents of sanctionable conduct."
*The Court said viewing her as "incompetent was "not a substitute for the bar complain process" It said Judge Weill usurped the role of the Mississippi Supreme Court as it said the Court was the only entity who could determine the competency of a lawyer. Judge Weill thus has no "authority to deny Ms. Kelly the right to practice law before him" as the Court never determined her fitness to practice law. Judge Kitchens disclosed in his opinion that the Judge had filed a bar complaint against Ms. Kelly while Kelley had filed one against Judge Weill with the Commission on Judicial Performance. The Court said that since the bar complaint had not yet reached the court for review, it could not comment on the fitness of Ms. Kelly to practice law.
*The Court also noted that Judge Weill has yet to find Ms. Kelly in contempt. This remedy is available to Judge Weill to discipline wayward attorneys but it was never used against Ms. Kelly in her courtroom. The Court also said that he had no hearing, made no finding of contempt, nor issued any sanction against Ms. Kelly. Thus Ms. Kelly can represent defendants in Judge Weill's courtroom.
*The Court refused to reassign the 55 cases as requested by Ms. Purvis. The Court did authorize the HCPDO to inform each defendant that he could keep the counsel appointed by Judge Weill or utilize a public defender.
*The Court refused to determine who was at fault and ordered all parties to figure out a way to get along.
Kingfish note: The Court hammered Judge Weill in this ruling for ignoring procedure and the law. I said on the radio he could hold her in contempt, sanction her, or file a bar complaint but didn't see how he could ban her from the courtroom absent those remedies. It appears the court refused to grant either party completely what they wanted and instead tried to defuse the conflict and make the wheelsl of justice move along more smoothly by keeping the cases on his docket.
37 comments:
Bottom line - they ruled he had no authority to bar her from representing defendants in his courtroom the way he did. Which is what I've been saying from the beginning.
The ruling simply states the following:
“Judge Weill and Attorney Purvis and Kelly..... play nice.”
No, the ruling simply states, "Judge Weill, you're not us. Quit playing like it and do your job in the rob/role you have."
Public defenders have it hard enough without having to put up with this bs.
-signed, civil defense lawyer
Well; I see we totally wasted a lot of the high court's time since both 'Jane' and 'Kingfish' have quickly told us they had both already reached these same conclusions.
'Kingfish' "Said it on the radio", and 'Jane' has been "saying it from the beginning".
There is a certain feeling amongst PD's and other crim def attys that they can show common rudeness toward the judge in Weill's court -- behavior they would not get away with in Judge Tomie Green's court or any other. That being said, Weill has been really arrogant since his re-election and to a large extent brought this on himself.
I HAVE been saying it from the beginning. On my blog when I was the first person to report on it. I check the initial filings of everything that gets filed in the Miss.S.Ct. for my blog. I wrote it up as soon as I saw it and opined that Weill had no right to do what he did. Verifiable by reading my law blog.
http://janeslawblog.com/2015/02/27/hinds-county-public-defender-at-odds-with-judge-weill/
Jane, don't feed the trolls.
For all I know, no one would have known about this if it were not for the fact that I look at every initial filing that gets filed in the Mississippi Supreme Court which is a lot of work. We're up to 784 as of this morning.
Most important line about the future cases that come before Judge Weill from pp. 1 and 2:
"These defendants - and all Hinds County defendants in the future who have met the statute's requirements - already were represented by the HCPDO when they appeared before Judge Weill, without any necessity of an appointment."
If I'm Hinds County, I now file a motion requiring Weill to reassign everyone to the HCPDO, because (1) Weill had no legal authority to appoint those special counsel, and (2) the county has to pay their bills - what does a Brunini lawyer charge for playing criminal-defense lawyer? - in addition to the HCPDO's salaries etc.
But, hey, it's just public money. So maybe just let it go. That's what taxes are for, right?
Unless it has changed in the last couple of years, private appointed counsel was paid $60 per hour of documented work
$60/hr??? Are they required to report the diff b/t that and their regular rate as a donation to Judge Weill?
I'm no troll. I've been on this site longer than Jane or anon @ 3:37. My point was, and she just proved it, that she is quick to claim some sort of adjunct expertise and consortium with the court in their ruling. To wit: I said it first. I put it on my blog early. Here's my blog address. Here's my proof. I got the answer first.
I've been participating in this blog since the very beginning. And I have ZERO pull or connection with the Court and have NEVER claimed any. I do have the ability to research the law and have enough confidence in the Mississippi Supreme Court to know that they would follow the law. And for the last year and a half I'm been loading the docket numbers into my computer every other night to see what is being filed and, thus, reported this story first after first sending an e-mail to the Clarion Ledger. That is all I've ever claimed. I've practiced criminal law for almost all of my 28 years of practicing law and my first job after clerking was doing death penalty cases. Please quit trying to put words in my mouth. To anybody with the slightest bit of sense, this result was a foregone conclusion. If you blew it, that does not reflect well on you. It has nothing to do with me or Kingfish claiming any connection to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Oh, and even that law professor at MC was interviewed and said he had never heard of a judge doing what Weill was doing. So pretty much all the people who know what they are talking about nailed it.
Let it go Jane, it's Jackson. Probably one of those rednecks that were all up in arms defending Herr Weill at the time and can't understand what the Supreme Court just did.
Do attorneys blog because they are unemployed or bored?
I'm no troll. I've been on this site longer than Jane or anon @ 3:37.
Jane was here at the birth of JJ. You weren't because if you had been you would have known that. LOSER.
I have been a practicing attorney in a small firm for 10 years, and I don't know any of the Hinds PDs or Judge Weill, but I DO know reason, logic, and practical experience when I see it. With that said, JUSTICE KITCHENS agree/disagree statement was so well written I had to read it 3 times, and plan to read it again!!!! He was dead right with every word, and it's a shame that the majority of the court would say go "go play nice"!!!
We need more judges and justices that think like Kitchens in every court room of this State!
So as I understand it, the supremes basically said "go ahead PDs office, assign Kelly to represent defendants in Weill's courtroom". Frankly, as an employed, tax paying member of the Jackson community, I hope the PDs office assigns ALL their cases in Weill's court to Kelly - that will certainly take at least those robbing, raping scumbags off the street for a long time.
Nobody has accused 'Jane' of having any pull with or affiliation with 'the court'. The claim that was made, and accurately so, is that she is busting her silly ass jumping up and down shouting "Look At Me!, I Was First, See My Blog, See Jane Run."
7:26 - bored.
5:27 - you do realize we can read the thread, right? Jane merely noted that she had called it, as did KF, & then some fool (you?) chose to snark about it.
The fact that almost everyone saw that Weill was doing wrong, combined with the unanimous decision, tells us something about Weill's grasp of the law. So it's not just "ooooh I called it."
Jane's blog updates the public on appellate decisions & other legal news. What's your contribution to the Internet, besides useless comments?
The court showed they care more about being reelected than about their legal responsibilities!
Cowards!
So let me understand this - putting aside their respective reasons, Weill didn't want Kelly trying cases in his courtroom (thus his order reassigning cases) and the PD's office didn't want Weill hearing Kelly's cases (thus their motion to recuse) and the supremes ignored both Weill and the PD and said Kelly has to continue to try cases in front of Weill anyway. WOW
Wise hates every lawyer who appears before her and all the lawyers hate her and it still happens. Same for Green.
8:33, there, I fixed it for you:
"The judge showed he cared more about power than about his legal responsibilities!"
7:12, is that your husband, 'Jane'? We all realize you are a tireless attention grabber, as evidenced by your attention grabbing posts on this thread. So you called it. So did every other attorney. Big deal. Go back to reviewing pleadings and loading docket numbers and maybe, in the meantime, your phone will ring.
I don't have a husband. My real name is Jane so the quotes are insane, and of the zillion things I've been called, no one has ever called me a tireless attention grabber. I have a blog summarizing the Mississippi appellate opinions because ever since the Court started posting opinions (maybe 20 years ago), I was clicking on the link at 1:30 EVERY Thursday. When the Court of Appeals was created. I started clicking that link at 1:30 EVERY Tuesday. When the Court mandated electronic filing, I created the blog I wanted to read. That's all. Every time the Court of Appeals' hand down list contains 20 opinions, I think I'm going to have to quit blogging but I won't because I'm stubborn that way.
Grantor: ADKINS MURPHY -EXEC- ET AL
Grantee: ADKINS MURPHY
Nature: DEED
Madison County
Book: 3208 Page: 596
Section: 27 Township: 08N Range: 02E
Date Recorded: 5/21/2015
More Information IMAGES: Download Image 1
I agree with Justices Kitchen's and King's dissents in the Weill decision. The majority decision avoided the issue and left the situation wide open for future problems. Worse still, it leaves a smoldering cauldron in place that jeopardizes the integrity of the already crumbling judicial structure in Hinds County even further for the public's consumption. It's just another obvious example of the Supreme Court avoiding its responsibility to address fully and properly an important issue.
1:32 pm I said what I meant but I should have added " Mississippi Supreme"...just thought it obvious.
But, I don't disagree with your sentence!
And, I could have added that most of them are political hacks and only three even begin to have the legal credentials and experience to be in the office they hold!
The irony is that Judge Weil will not be able to hear any of Ms. Kelly's cases due to the Judicial Canons. A judge CANNOT hear a case where the attorney has filed a judicial complaint against him, nor can he hear a case where he has filed a bar complaint against the attorney. CANNOT.
Not sure if the fact that Steffy agrees furthers your position
I don't think the Court punted. I think it recognized that there were complaints at the bar and commission. The Court is going to let them work their way through the system and deal with them when they appear at the Court. The Court told Weill he couldn't ban her from his courtroom and why. The Court also refused to recuse him from the cases. In other words, it knocked their heads together and told them to get along and it would deal with the complaints in their appropriate manner.
Justices Kitchens and King know that in the area of governance, perception is often just as important as the actual facts themselves. How does "telling the judge and counsel to get along" further the cause of justice in the eyes of the public? If the judiciary ever loses its perception of impartiality towards the litigants and their attorneys, then the judicial system will cease to remain credible in the eyes of the public. In the case of Hinds County, it can only lead to more chaos and anarchy--all of the problems of New Orleans, but having none of its charm.
Post a Comment