Jackson Jambalaya

Opening arguments begin today in State v. Robert Shuler Smith.  Smith was indicted for three counts of improperly helping a criminal defendant.  A flurry of motions and responses were filed over the weekend.  Smith tried to call Attorney General Jim Hood as a witness and also tried to obtain information form the Clarion-Ledger provided by its sources.  JJ posted the remaining filings below that are deemed to be relevant as well as some highlights. 


*Motion to Exclude Video of The Fishing Trip. Ivon Johnson video taped himself and Robert Shuler Smith as they fished together.   Smith says he made several "critical and profane statements" about Judge Jeff Weill.  The motion argues the tape has no evidence that relates to whether Smith is guilty of any of the charges.  (p.1)

*State's Motion to Exclude undated Text Messages.  There are several text messages between Smith and U.S. Attorney Greg Davis.  The text messages do not provide any dates.  Smith also produced text messages between himself and Attorney John Reeves, Attorney Jodi Owens and Special Assistant Attorney General Patrick Beasley.  Some were dated but most did not contain a date.  The state also argues that it has not been able to verify the messages because the D.A. "was unwilling to permit the State access to the unlock code for that phone".  The motion posits that Smith "simply cherry-picked" favorable text messages and might have withheld incriminating text messages.  (p.8) The state asks the court to bar all text messages that do not contain a date.  (Some text messages are provided on p.12).

*Motion to strike witness James Robertson.  The prosecution claims the defense will call James Robertson as an expert witness on matters of legal ethics and a lawyer's professional responsibility.  (p.19)   It argues expert witnesses are allowed to testify about facts or the interpretation of facts.  The defense wants to use Mr. Robertson to argue the constitutionality and interpretation of law.  The Court already ruled on these issues and the defense is attempting to use an expert witness to attack them again.    Mr. Robertson's report is provided as an exhibit. (p.22)

*State's Motion to Exclude Argument and Evidence of Alleged Retaliatory Vindictive or Selective Prosecution of the Defendant. (p.32) The D.A. apparently provided jury instructions that accused the prosecution of "unconstitutional retaliation".   The proposed instructions also argued he was targeted for prosecution because he prosecuted public officials.  Such a prosecution, he argues, is a violation of the equal protection clause.   The state fires back and says the case is not a civil rights lawsuit but a criminal prosecution.  The A.G. argues the primary question is whether the defendant is guilty of the  actions stated in the indictment. 

The state asks the court to prevent the D.A. from using any theory that he is the subject of a retaliatory prosecution.   It also asks the court to reject his argument because he already raised them "at the pre-trial state". 

*Smith's Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider the Court's orders of October 25 declining to dismiss or quash the indictment. (p.41) The D.A. got his teeth kicked in pretty good on October 25 but wants a rematch.  The first six pages are Smith's version of the history of the case.  The arguments Smith makes for the remainder of the motion were already heard by Judge Larry Roberts and adjudicated at earlier hearings.