The fate of Ben Allen will finally be placed into the hands of the jury today. The defense rested yesterday and closing arguments will be heard this morning. The courtroom circus continued yesterday as Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith called none other than one Jackson Ward 3 councilman Kenneth Stokes to testify as a rebuttal witness. The D.A. also attempted to change eight of the ten counts in the indictment but Judge Winston Kidd said hell no to that idea. A Hinds County grand jury indicted Mr. Allen for embezzlement in his position as Executive Director of Downtown Jackson Partners.
Meanwhile, Othor Cain provided some of the best coverage of the trial on his Facebook page:
Judge Kidd just denied the motion to amend the indictment. "At this juncture in the trial it wouldn't be wise as I believe when the defendant was served his indictment, his defense prepared accordingly."Meanwhile, Jerry Mitchell reported in the Clarion-Ledger:
Prosecution is asking the judge now to amend the indictment on charges/counts 1-8.Kidd is asking why at this stage? Defense is responding the reason the prosecution wants to make the changes is because they didn't prove their side in either of those counts.
All of Stokes' answers to the defense questions were "NO." The council has NO authority over the money. The council can not tell DJP what to do with money. The council has no control over tax collector...No...No..No... Stokes' testimony has ended. Once again both sides returned to the judges' bench.
Judge Kidd has allowed Stokes to testify but with qualifiers and restrictions saying, "this isn't about politics." Smith is finding it difficult to ask certain questions. Kidd has called both sides to the bench again.
Judge Kidd just ruled that Kenneth Stokes will be allowed to testify (limited) in the embezzlement trial of Ben Allen, who serves as the president of Downtown Jackson Partners.The prosecution wants Stokes to counter the strong defense of DJPs attorney Robert L. Gibbs. The defense called this motion "an attempt to sandbag the defense."
Stokes is calling the money that DJP receives tax money and he says the city has no oversight of this tax money. "I've voted against this in the past..this isn't the right process," he said.
Court is back in session. The prosecution (Robert Smith) is wanting to call Councilman Kenneth Stokes as a witness. The defenseMerrida Coxwell is arguing that allowing Stokes would be a violation of the discovery rules of the court and saying his testimony would be his opinion at best. Smith is arguing he's a sitting Jackson City Councilman and can speak. Kidd is hearing from both sides now and will make a ruling shortly.
After only calling two witnesses to the stand, the defense just rested in the embezzlement trail of Ben Allen, who serves as president of Downtown Jackson Partners.
Kidd: will not allow the prosecution to cross examine Gibbs on cases in which the Supreme Court over turned his decisions while he served as Circuit Judge. The prosecution was attempting to ask the justice to impeach Robert L. Gibbs' testimony.
Robert L. Gibbs remains extremely firm in his position of private vs public funds. He continues to say to Smith, "sir you're wrong." Smith has asked again this morning how much Gibbs earn from DJP. Gibbs responded to courtroom laughter, "how many times can I say the same thing."
Another Day (Day 6) in the embezzlement trial of Downtown Jackson Partners President Ben Allen.
The battle of the Roberts just began...again! Robert Smith's first question was to ask Robert Gibbs if he was a board member of DJP to which Robert L. Gibbs responded,"as I told you last week, I'm not a board member, I'm the attorney for DJP..."
Last week, the defense dealt a blow to the prosecution’s case when Derrick Garner of the state auditor’s office, who investigated Allen and the Partners, testified he found no proof Allen embezzled funds related to the charges listed in the indictment.
Robert L. Gibbs of Jackson, an attorney for the Partners, testified Monday that if he knew Allen had used any of the nonprofit’s money for personal use, he would tell the jury.
“If you can show me where (Allen) spent any of the (Partners’) money for a whirlpool for his son, I’ll tell the jury that’s wrong, but you haven’t shown it to me,” Gibbs told District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith.
An indictment accuses Allen of embezzling money from the Partners, and Smith told jurors that money from the nonprofit went to buy a whirlpool for his son. But Gibbs testified he found the money actually went to parts for a Whirlpool refrigerator owned by the Partners.
Alluding to Garner’s report where he listed embezzlement as the charge he investigated, Smith asked Gibbs if he would accept Garner’s finding.
“I don’t agree to a finding until I see the evidence behind the finding,” replied Gibbs, who receives a $1,000-a-month retainer to represent the nonprofit.
Asked if he would accept that this was a crime, Gibbs replied, “If (Allen) used … Partners’ money to buy his son a whirlpool, that would be wrong, and I would tell the jury it’s wrong, but I’m not going to say it’s a crime.” He said that’s because the Partners’ money is private, not public.
Smith said if someone buys property in the 66-block business improvement district, they must pay the tax. “They can’t opt out,” he said.
Gibbs replied that before people buy property in the district, they would learn they owe the assessment.
He said 91 percent of those in the district had voted to continue the district and that they decided to raise their assessment from 9 to 11 cents a square foot.
“Those people decided to do it themselves,” he said. “The city has no input on that.”
Smith handed Gibbs the minutes of a meeting in which Allen referred to “slow taxes” affecting the Partners’ revenue.
Gibbs told Smith the revenue is not a tax.
“The statute calls it an assessment,” Gibbs said. “Several times in the statute it is referred to as an assessment. You need to stop calling it a tax.”
As for questions surrounding the Partners, Gibbs said the nonprofit has “always had clean audits.” Article
However, Mr. Mitchell did not report the D.A.'s attempts to change the indictment. Mr. Smith apparently wanted to strike part of the statute from eight counts of the indictment. Meanwhile, WLBT provided this video coverage:
Kingfish note: Now the real fun starts. What will the jury do?
29 comments:
Put on your to do list in Hinds County; vote out RSS!
I assume Allen didn't testify. About 90% of the time, that means he is, in fact, guilty.
The Bar could and should review his license. Are DA's required to be Members of the Mississippi Bar?
Not following too closely, but it appears he is guilty, but the prosecution blew it.
Robert Gibbs is one of the classiest individuals you'll ever meet, and not just in the legal field. Hinds County would be a much better place if he were still on the bench. Nothing but integrity in that honorable man.
10:12, you're a genius.
10:21 --
So. You're not following closely. Tells me you haven't been in the courtroom to hear ANY evidence or see ANY exhibits, but you've concluded that (a) he's guilty; but (b) the DA's office blew it.
Putting aside that (b) is a legit assumption -- Smith being a race-obsessed unhinged freak and all -- what do you base your learned opinion on?
1. Suggesting the D.A. be 'voted out' is as nutty as suggesting Stokes should be voted out. Impossible.
2. Suggesting someone who does not testify in his own defense is (90% of the time) an indication of guilt is as nutty as a damned fruitcake. Upon what legal theory, poll or study is that madness based?
This isn't about a truck, never has been about a truck, and never will be about a truck. The truck is just an impetus for something else that the outsiders looking in haven't a clue about. That much is apparent.
10:31 over thirty years as an attorney in the criminal justice system, state and federal, all in Mississippi...
Not following too closely, but it appears he is guilty, but the prosecution blew it.
Not following too closely but you'll generously offer an uninformed opinion nonetheless.
Attn 10:31 Over 30 years as an attorney in the criminal justice system? And that is what you learned in your 30 years of esteemed service.
generally, there are three reasons criminal defendants don't testify:
1. they are guilty
2. they have past convictions that the jury can hear about
3. they have such a bad personality or other traits that can cause a jury to intensely dislike them.
Allen has neither problems 2 and 3.
Although the judge will tell the jury not to consider the fact that the defendant didn't testify, they will, and they will wonder why he didn't explain to them how he's innocent.
Even if is covicted, I bet has a very good chance of winning on an appeal.
No worries about RSS. My bet is the Bar/Supreme Court will take him out of service before a jury/electorate will. Just a hunch.
Everyone knows he is guilty. He got caught but he put the money back. His buddies are pretty much the same as him so were glad they got the money back. They now know they can do the same thing and expect the same results. No matter what the jury decides, the people know he is guilty.
what's really on trial here is Hinds County and its administration of justice. Everything I have read and studied, and some personal knowledge of RSS, this is a classic race based inquisition. If Allen is convicted, it will be a travesty of justice, and will have repercussions far beyond this silly trial. In the end, he will be exonerated.
To: 11:53
I intensely dislike Ben Allen---he is self centered and has used the DJP Board to his advantage and helped Board members get a leg up on their competition. Ben has no clue on how to run an organization that is the life blood of Jackson. DJP, you need to hire the person from Chattanooga or Little Rock that turned those cities around---WHAT ARE YOU WAITING ON ??????????
11:53, there is a fourth. (I agree with your first three) If the defense feels that the prosecution hasn't made their case and as in this trial the jury has heard more than they are interested in, then its time to shut up and close it down.
And what could Ben say except that he didn't take the money, and that the board had approved all the expenditures?
Hey, 10:12 with "I assume Allen didn't testify. About 90% of the time, that means he is, in fact, guilty."
Why do you suppose Ms Brune didn't testify? Do you assume then that she too is, in fact, guilty?
Based on what I have read in media aw well as blog, I would guess that he is not guilty and will be found not guilty by the jury. I'm amazed to read that the DA and apparently also the grand jury cannot differentiate between money for a whirlpool (a hot-tub) and money for parts to a Whirlpool appliance.
If he were to testify everybody knows damned well this psychotic, neurotic prosecutor would question him for four days about everything under the sun and nothing having anything to do with the reason for this trial.
Allen has nothing to gain by testifying. Once he got past three 'NO's, he would still sit there in this circus for four days of trying to respond to idiotic inquiries.
@1;43 -- Agreed.
1:27, that is a rare occurrence in my experience, however you are correct. good point. I don't think that is what is happening in this trial however.
One thing I don't completely understand is whether DJP produced documentation about the credit card purchases and minutes concerning the truck title. Without an "accounting" for those matters, hard defense for the jury from the 1st Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, to accept...
Having been on DJP Board when all this came up, I am shocked that it has gotten this far. Ben provided receipts and documentation for every single dollar that he was alleged to have stolen. The outside auditors verified that. The outside legal counsel verified that. Ben never personally profited from a dime. That's the truth. Perhaps, Ben was not called to testify because the lawyers think think the jury gets it. I pray that the jury recognizes the truth and acquits Ben.
I bet it is going to be awkward for Meagan West of channel 16 if he is found guilty. I know it would be for me if i had to tell the world that my father in law was found guilty of embezzling money. Ive noticed that wapt has been rather low key on their coverage of this trial.
Thanks 'Little Ben' @ 3:25.
5:40, you're wrong there. Megan has absolutely reported on it as has Scott Simmons.
The jury has spoken. Get that thug off the streets.
3:25 How on earth could Ben have supplied receipts for every credit card purchase when the Board Chairman, David Watkins, stated to the Clarion Ledger that Ms. Brune stole those files and they couldn't operate without them. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Post a Comment