Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill had enough and fired back at Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith. Judge Weill accused the District Attorney of lying, attacking his court through the media, and using the sealing of the files to his advantage in a statement filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court. The statement also revealed that an unnamed person has been indicted and an employee of the District Attorney has a child and relationship with a "former client" of the District Attorney. Punches were not held nor did the dirt remain undished.
The D.A. asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to transfer the Cause #16-120 from Judge Weill to Special Judge Larry Roberts. JJ would love to actually publish the name of the case or tell the readers who the defendant is but the case was sealed by Judge Tomie Green. Judge Weill received the case through a random assignment*.
Mr. Smith argued that the sealing of the case prevented him from obtaining evidence that could clear him in his own defense. A grand jury indicted Mr. Smith last week for three counts of conspiracy to hinder prosecutions. His motion said Judge Weill could not hear the case since he had filed a bar complaint against the District Attorney.
However, Judge Weill had a few things to say and filed a statement in response to Mr. Smith's motion to transfer the case. Judge Weill said he had "absolutely no objection to unsealing" the file and transcript but also said:
Circuit Court No. 251-16-120 is a sealed case which was randomly assigned to the docket of the undersigned judge. Judge Jeff Weill, Sr., on February 27, 2016. When it was assigned to the undersigned, the case file had already been placed under seal by Senior Circuit Judge Tomie Green by way of an Order signed on February 19, 2016. Judge Green prudently ordered the file to be sealed, as the initial filing was a motion by the Office of the Attorney General to present certain individuals for investigation to the Hinds County Grand Jury, due to an alleged conflict of interest of the Hinds County District Attorney. All grand jury issues are required to be sealed and confidential per URCCC 7.04. Mr. Smith was a party to the sealed case file and a recipient of all sealed filings, but he has continuously failed to include relevant detail in his numerous motions urging the seal to be lifted. Further. Mr. Smith has made blatant public misrepresentations about the nature of these sealed proceedings in his public statements to the media.Judge Weill then called the D.A.'s bluff and said "you want to unseal these files, let's unseal them and put it all out there for the world to see". The jurist stated:
The proceedings in 251-16-120 arguably relate to the original misdemeanor charges against Smith. However, those were dismissed, and a three (3) count indictment was issued against Smith on September 7, 2016, related only to Smith's alleged conduct with Christopher Butler, a criminal defendant who Smith was prosecuting until he recently agreed to disqualify himself. Even as recently as September 8, 2016, one day following the indictment focused only on Butler, The Clarion Ledger reported as follows: "Smith believes sealed court procedures, including a hearing containing testimony of an FBI agent, could be favorable toward his case." The very next sentence quoted Smith: "'There's a reason why ... they've resisted the release of the hearing, while knowing what it contains,' he said." Jimmy E. Gates, Mollie Bryant, Hinds County district attorney and Assistant DA Indicted, THF CLARION LEDGFR, September 8, 2016. Given that Smith knows what the transcript contains, but he continues to misrepresent the content, including an ongoing mischaracterization of the sworn testimony of an FBI agent, this court is of the opinion that the interests of justice may in fact favor lifting the seal. Despite being in attendance at the hearing, and after even being provided with a copy of Special Agent Culpepper's testimony, Smith continues to publicly and misleadingly infer that the circuit court is intentionally hiding court transcripts which would exculpate him. Smith's ongoing attempt to malign the circuit court, simply because it furthers his own personal interests, should not be permitted...
The case in question apparently involves someone who has been indicted but not yet been served:
Second, the proceedings in 251-16-120 concern a motion seeking to prosecute two individuals based on an alleged conflict of Smith. One Defendant had already been indicted, but the indictment remains unserved. The hearing primarily involved the second individual, who is undisputedly a former client of Smith's and the father of two children of an employee on Smith's office staff. During the hearing, Smith conceded that he had an ethical conflict that would preclude him from prosecuting his former client, and he announced that he had no objection to another prosecuting agency proceeding, since he would recuse given their prior attorney client relationship. Accordingly, Smith should not be entitled to have any further involvement in a matter in which he admits he is ethically prohibited from all participation. This is even more significant, given the direct familial relationship between Smith's employee and his former client, who had been arrested and charged with violent criminal conduct....
Judge Weill said the case has no relation to "any of the charges" in Mr. Smith's indictment. He reiterated that the District Attorney has received every single sealed document in this case.
Finally, it is important to recognize that Smith was a party to each and every filing and proceeding in 251-16-120. Smith received every sealed document filed in 251-16-120, and he personally attended and participated in the only hearing held in the matter. Despite being a participant in the hearing, Smith and his current counsel (who was not present) misleadingly continue to publicly infer that this trial court is hiding proceedings which could exonerate Smith. This public pandering should not be permitted, in view of URCCC 9.01, which prohibits pre-trial publicity. Even if Smith's public comments were permissible by the pre-trial publicity rules, they are prohibited by the rules of professional conduct, because they are misleading and intended to malign this court without any basis....
The motion should've just said "bring it on" because that is in effect what the conclusion said:
In fact, the unsealing would put an end to Smith's ongoing public misrepresentations concerning the nature and relevance of these proceedings to his criminal prosecution, which would benefit the Hinds County Circuit Court. The continuous misrepresentations by Smith continue to mar our criminal justice system as the circuit court judges attempt to conduct regular court business in the wake of the criminal charges against the county's top prosecutor.Cranberries, mashed potatoes, and gravy, you can't make this up. As the District Attorney said earlier this week, stay tuned.
Kingfish note: Gentlemen, I think war has been declared. Several facts to be gleaned from this statement:
1. The D.A. apparently received everything filed in this case. One must ask why he is asking the Supreme Court to unseal a case so he can see what is in the file when in fact, he already has the file.
2. Someone has been indicted but we don't know who it is because he or she has not yet been served. Let the puckering begin.
3. A criminal defendant apparently has a relationship and kids with someone who works for Mr. Smith. What exactly is that all about?
*Readers will remember that Judge Weill and Judge Green fought over the use of the random assignment method. Judge Green wanted to curtail its use so she could personally assign cases while Judge Weill defended the random assignment method. The fight went to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Judge Weill won.
33 comments:
So now Weill agrees that the a case should be unsealed after Judge Roberts has already ordered it unsealed? Oh ok. So why didn't he do this earlier???
Holy Moly my head hurts!
Why don't you actually read the post. The statement is posted at the bottom. At the top of the document is a........... time stamp. A time stamp states what time and date the document was faxed to the court. The hearing was at 1:00 PM that day. The statement was faxed to the court at 8:15 AM. AM is morning and PM is afternoon. That means Judge Weill submitted his statement to the court BEFORE Judge Roberts heard the case.
Try actually reading the post although we should just be grateful that you actually know how to read.
Touche' KF.
KF, how about a summary/timeline/roundup of everything going on? It's hard to keep track.
KF,
Weill clearly knew that the case would be unsealed since there was no justifiable basis to seal it in the first place. This was just his attempt, or his law clerk's attempt since we all know she writes and researches for him, to get in some jabs.
Read it and weep, 11:40. Church meet out. Fat lady is really humming now.
Hot mess!
There's a baby daddy conflict of interest?!
Make that a HOT MESS!
Didn't know RSS was filling potholes.
Does anyone else find it deeply concerning that Judge Weill continues to find himself involved in these controversies that make their way before the supreme court? I'm sure the justices are tired of seeing his name by now.
Wood Street Gang. RSS served as "general counsel" for them, much akin to what Maury Levy did for the Barksdales in "The Wire". I'll bet you a cold Coca Cola that many of RSS's bizarre actions are tied to members/affiliates of Wood Street and that they are holding something over on him.
Girrrrrrrrlllll......can't have duh baby daddy goin' to jail!
3:07. No. Get a life.
"or his law clerk's attempt since we all know she writes and researches for him,"
Uh, I do believe that is her job description.
Dumbass.
And I haven't heard of the Wood Street Gang since Frank Melton checked out. How, u, nostalgic.
Is it possible that KF could be any further up Judge Weill's butt? KF seems to always forecast the exact rulings and it suggests to me that he has inside knowledge. "Where could that come from?" said the church lady. Maybe from, I don't know....... Could it be ...... Weill has drowned us all with page after page of his concerns as a jurist to the Supreme Court and Bar that started with the Public Defenders and doesn't seem to ever end. KF you are so biased that your blog has become nothing but a mouthpiece for your special friends. Maybe you didn't plan your blog that way in the beginning, but now you have lost all neutrality and frankly integrity.
LMAO, integrity? You are anonymous, where is your integrity? Who is your butt buddy?
5:06 phuck off. Just because your fancy isn't get tickled, trying to throw the baby out with the bath water is downright humorous. Quit reading the blog, clown, or go start your own.
I'll have to admit that as a non-legallike person, I am confused. But, if these two children are sired by a violent person, I hope he does go to jail.
7:21; Don't violent persons have a right to have intercourse?
I know I'm not the only reader here who sees Kingfish's anonymous remarks lambasting those who dare to either disagree with him or call him out. He always goes into the same rage using almost the same identical words: Phuck Off. Get outa here. Start your own blog.
My money is on Darnell Turner a/k/a Slick. There is a close relationship with RSS. He is the only one from Grayhead's group that escaped the Feds case. Feds probably pretty interested in him. Just a guess.
Too much truth in my post in order for it to survive.
I'm a big fan of Jeff Weill's, and had cases with him before he was a judge.
But my goodness, Jeff doesn't know the difference between "infer" and "imply." Made the error twice in the documents posted. That's kinda pathetic for a jurist. It's akin to saying "between you and I." Basic knowledge of the meanings of simple words is an implied minimum qualification for judges. (Not an "inferred" one.)
Jeez.
5:06 --
Basic knowledge of law & facts make it all pretty clear. Weill's not the bad guy here, and I find it odd that you have no concern whatsoever that the chief prosecutor for the county finds himself indicted by an entity with no connection to Weill.
Alternatively, I'll play along; say Weill is the bad guy in this scenario. What's his motivation, and what does he stand to gain?
I'll wait, serenaded by cricket sounds.
I was waiting for one of the WMPR crowd to show up. Well, Mr. 5:06, there is no forecasting of rulings or advance knowledge. I simply post what appears in the court files. There is not a single judge in this state that has ever leaked me anything. Trust me, I wish they would but it doesn't happen. However, I seem to read these court files and post the documents that are news-worthy more quickly than most of the media. However, I understand if you are not smart enough to realize the difference.
Frankly, my coverage of this entire story this year has been very fair to the D.A. His responses have been posted pretty quickly. A full post was devoted to his response to the bar complaint. The actual response was posted in its entirety.
We have charges and indictments against the D.A. However, the prosecution is going to have to prove its case against him just as the D.A. is going to have to prove his case against several defendants in other cases.
And I will say it as I've said on other posts. Judge Weill has been reversed some by the Supreme Court lately. As for my predicting how the court would rule, anyone who knows the public records laws and this case could easily predict Judge Robert's rulings. Gannett v. Hand was not followed and no one was objecting to unsealing what was sealed. Try actually reading instead of thinking everything you don't understand is a great conspiracy.
ShaDDowfax: Nice try. Just more trash you are throwing out. You never prove anything, just toss out there whatever you think. Problem is, no one else shares your demented views.
RSS sucks and so does Weill.
10:37 may have just nailed it.
Right 10:55. YOU are 10:37.
12:29, you could be 10:37 and 10:55!!! Stop arguing with yourself.
Here is what has bugged me about Weill from the beginning. He swore an oath to uphold the constitution and that includes the Bill of Rights. Once he chastised a jury for voting not guilty because he had decided the person was guilty and he is on record doing that. Next he is supposedly presuming every defendant innocent at the outset yet by banning RSS from his court he has already found him guilty because again he has decided he is guilty. Yesterday, he blew off RSS' freedom of speech when he cried to the Supreme Court complaining that if the speech criticizes the Court, then RSS doesn't get to have freedom of speech. He is a politician not a judge from my view as he clearly speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I was too kind- he is a Hypocrite.
You call Wiell a hypocrite I call us blessed to have him.
5:30... Didn't realize RSS was a defendant in Weill's court by which he would be entitled to presumption of innocence. "Banning" is administrative in nature, not criminal. 1st amendment rights are not universally applicable to all persons and behavior. Just as a Soldier cannot criticize the President, an officer of the court may be restrained from unfettered speech.
Thanks for all your deep shoe-leather enterprise reporting on all this RSS stuff Kingfish. You've been there from the outset and even before the outset.
Post a Comment