Jackson Jambalaya

Belhaven's second favorite son!

What the actual f***? Who is Jimmy Giles? This is bizarre.

No standing. Next?

"Jimmy Giles" The only Jimmy Giles I have heard of was a second string tight end for the Greenville (Ms.) Hornets and went on to be an All-Pro defensive lineman in the N.F.L. He played in G'ville with 2 other All Pros, Wilbert and Cleo(the) Montgomery.

Wilbert Montgomery, greatest Eagle RB ever.

SVB?

This is the same guy that ran against Harper I believe.

" Shut up you stupid klucker said...

No standing. Next? "

You wouldn't be so disrespectful toe to toe and alone, now would you sweetie?

Otherwise, cite your case law supporting no standing.

Is he the fella who sells honey at the farmer's market?

Harper 89.1%
Giles 10.9%

"Harper 89.1%
Giles 10.9%"

Hell son, I live in a $16,000 trailer at the end of a 1700 foot dirt road and it's funny that you cite the vote count and not actual case law, e.g.,

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the closure unconstitutional, noting that voir dire has traditionally been an open and public process "throughout Anglo-American history." Explaining the benefit of such open proceedings, the Court commented that the "The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed.” The Court added: “Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.”

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/covering-courts-jury-selection-voir-dire

P.S. I endorsed Trump and he won. And I predicted his victory too. If he can win other White Working Class Men can win too. Fake News Media has no credibility. Who did Harper endorse?

P.P.S. Times are a changin'!

You are mistaken. I'm not your son. Sorry.

"You are mistaken. I'm not your son. Sorry."

Nor are you a Southern Rebel!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQ_aTjXObs

Live PD just ended and I needed some entertainment. I thought I had found it but I don't like soap operas!

Mr. Giles,
I could be wrong, but attempting to derail this high profile trial is no way to win the white working class vote nor the conservative black vote.

There's a list out there somewhere of all the offices Giles has run for and lost by 9 to 1 margins. I think it's on a legal pad. Everybody living in an 8 thousand dollar trailer claims it's value to be 16 thousand. And Giles says his number 9 shoes are actually size 13.

I'm reminded of the guy at Parchman who got access to the library computer and managed himself a mail-order law degree.

There is a better chance of snow this afternoon than Giles having ANY chance to influence ANYTHING.

Focusing only on the recent Giles v. Harper primary exposes your electoral ignorance.

This is the same Rankin loon who would stand in front of private schools and whine about how they don't fly the state flag.

Interesting. . . by trying to stop the trial, Giles is siding with the corrupt and incompetent Hinds County political class. He'll be popular in the 'hood if he succeeds. Doubt that crowd supports his man Trump. Maybe this is his attempt at outreach

Well Giles's is motion is fatally flawed because the public wasn't barred from attending voir dire. Apparently just him, and therefore he can't represent the interests of the public because the public was represented by other members of the public actually in the courtroom. He's just representing Giles and whatever grievance he has because *he* was barred. That don't end in no mistrial.

Poor Jimmy. Another cause. Another loss. Wrong side of history. Always.

TY post from y'day 11:19 PM through today 10:25 AM for if nothing else restoring MY
faith in sensibility.

this is called publicity stunt

Regardless of whether your agree with him or not Jimmy Giles would be far more principled in Congress than the milquetoast empty suit Gregg Harper. Mississippi isn't a conservative state, it is an enclosure for the Barbour cabal's owned RINO herd whose only objective is trough feeding.

Giles is that cra-cra guy that ran the Rebel Army blog years ago. When he ran for governor years ago, he stopped by our office to speechify.

I needed a bath when he left. I wish he'd move to Michigan and join some militia up there and leave Mississippi the hell alne.

11:16 - "Free the GOP" - if you could really believe that Giles would be a better representative than anybody (other than, of course, the remaining couple of dozen Tea Partiers and 'Patriots' gathered in your bunker or drinking the kool-aid with Crazy Laura) I assume you are getting ready to raid a courthouse, or a nursing home, in your don quixotet quest with Crazy Chris in a coming campaign. Y'all have fun now - maybe Giles will join you and wave his flag on the side of Hwy 25.

Criminal Case Proceedings Have a Constitutional Presumption of Openness

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (plurality opinion) The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the public and press have a presumptive First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings in criminal cases, finding that “a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.”

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) The U.S. Supreme Court in this case decided whether a statute which required mandatory exclusion of the press and public from the courtroom when minors testify about sexual assaults violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. They concluded that although there is a compelling interest for doing so in many cases, the statute is unconstitutional due to its mandatory nature. However, the case left trial judges the discretion to close courtrooms on a case by case basis.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (Press-Enterprise I) The U.S. Supreme Court in this case was asked to decide if the closure of a portion of voir dire for the purposes of juror privacy and increased candor violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, all but three days of a six-week voir dire process was open to the press and public. The Court found a constitutional violation and reversed the case because there were no individualized findings to support the trial court's conclusion that an open proceeding would threaten the defendant's right to a fair trial and the prospective jurors' interests in privacy.

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) The defendants in this case were wiretapped by the state police. The state moved to close the suppression hearing regarding the admissibility of the tapes obtained by the wiretaps and the motion was granted over the objection of the defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Under the Sixth Amendment, any closure of a suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the following tests: the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the hearing; and it must make findings adequate to support the closure. The case was reversed and remanded.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II) The U.S. Supreme Court determined that a qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to state court preliminary hearings. The proceedings cannot be closed to the press and/or public unless specific, on-the-record findings are made demonstrating that "closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."

Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) In this case, the defendant asserted his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to have voir dire open to public. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously determined that the press and public had a First Amendment Right to be present for voir dire. The Court determined that a criminal defendant has a qualified right to public voir dire which can only be circumvented with findings by the trial court that there was no other reasonable way to protect the safety of the jurors or integrity of the process.

http://www.ncsc.org/Microsites/High-Profile-Cases/Home/Critical-Constitutional-Case-Law.aspx

@6:55 PM I know that reading comprehension is not a RINO's strong suit but I wrote that Jimmy Giles would be "far more principled" than Harper.

But, of course, you were pent up and needed a conduit for another of your reliably tired Tea Party screeds that give you some sort of perverse cathartic release so you read what wasn't written and launched from there.

One thing Giles wouldn't be good at in Congress is whoring himself out for pork. My long-time observant guess is in that regard he would fail miserably compared to the stellar efforts doing the same by Harper, Wicker and our King of Pork Cochran.

Now matter how you slice it, Harper, Wicker and Cochran are not remotely conservative. Republicans, yes, conservative, NO.

They talked big and made happy for all the anti-Obama show votes but when it comes to actual legislating they are in the Beltway for one reason only, PORK.

Yes, notice that in each case the movant was either a newspaper or the actual defendant. The defendant obviously has standing to assert the right to an open hearing. The SCOTUS has held that the press has limited standing, although it is pretty narrow. So legal scholar, are you the defendant or the press?

What Wild Man Jim keeps missing is that the proceeding wasn't closed to the public; just him. His motion is a non-starter.

"Yes, notice that in each case the movant was either a newspaper or the actual defendant. The defendant obviously has standing to assert the right to an open hearing. The SCOTUS has held that the press has limited standing, although it is pretty narrow. So legal scholar, are you the defendant or the press?"

I am the one with a legitimate interest in the outcome and cannot protect that interest without becoming a party.

"The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure lack a counterpart to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, which allows intervention. But courts have permitted intervention when the potential intervenor has a legitimate interest in the outcome and cannot protect that interest without becoming a party."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1531643.html

Because these rights are presumed and are difficult to overcome, the case law in Virginia and the Fourth Circuit requires an adversarial hearing with the press and/or public’s representatives before sealing or closure takes place. The burden of proof is on the party moving for closure and the burden is on the court to provide a written evaluation of all factors, including the alternatives to closure, and if closure is ordered, an explanation about why only closure will be effective and the alternatives to closure will not be. If this “due process” for the public has not been provided, the sealing orders in this case have been granted improvidently.

. . . .

In 1980, in the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a presumed First Amendment right of public access to a criminal trial that is properly exercised when courts treat “the press” as a surrogate for the public. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980). (“Richmond I”) A second court access case followed quickly. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that the right of access can be outweighed only by a “compelling government interest” and if closure is to take place, it must be as narrow and as short as possible. (Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606-607 (1982). The high court next ruled in favor of access to the transcript of a closed voir dire in Press Enterprise v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (“PE I”).

. . . .

The reason for these strict requirements is simply that the right of access to criminal trials weighs so heavily. It is based on long English and American traditions of openness and the function of public oversight of the courts. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982). Open criminal trials and all attendant proceedings help the public understand that a
crime will be vindicated and that the prosecution, defense and the court are handling their duties properly. This value was acknowledged even by the Gannett court.

There can be no blinking the fact that there is a strong societal interest in public trials. Openness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial
participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system.

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra at 383. The fact that preliminary, suppression and other hearings end most criminal trials is a significant consideration. “If members of the public are to be able to evaluate the work of trial judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in the criminal justice system, there must be access to pretrial proceedings which are the only proceedings had in the great mass of criminal causes.” Buzbee v. Journal Newspapers, Inc., 297 Md. 68, 80 (Md. 1983)
Most important in a case like this one, the community’s emotional reaction to the crime is expected and respected by open proceedings.


https://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20120327_135836_lucan_brief1.pdf


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKhTk0IynHM

Good God you idiots are obsessed. Nobody reads all this shit. Take a breath.

You have to admire Jimmy Giles. He can cut and paste with the best of them.

Whatever rights one may have as a member of the public to an open trial, a mistrial is not available to resolve the issue. A mistrial may be granted sua sponte by the trial judge due some mistake which may prejudice a party's rights to a fair trial, or upon motion of a defendant or the prosecutor in connection to some circumstance that would improperly prejudice a party's right to a fair trial, but no such motion is available for a member of the public. A member of the public may be able to seek an order to open the trial to the public, but there is no legal right to a mistrial for a member of the public.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"You have to admire Jimmy Giles. He can cut and paste with the best of them."

LOL! Ain't it the truth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7uLC9UeTbw

I thought Richard Barrett was dead. But, he only moved from Learned to Pearl.

"Whatever rights one may have as a member of the public to an open trial, a mistrial is not available to resolve the issue. A mistrial may be granted sua sponte by the trial judge due some mistake which may prejudice a party's rights to a fair trial, or upon motion of a defendant or the prosecutor in connection to some circumstance that would improperly prejudice a party's right to a fair trial, but no such motion is available for a member of the public. A member of the public may be able to seek an order to open the trial to the public, but there is no legal right to a mistrial for a member of the public."

“[r]ules are made to secure justice, not defeat it.”  Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 366, 76 So. 267 (1917).   Moreover, “[a]ll courts have the inherent power to correct and make their judgments speak the truth.”  Turner v. State, 212 Miss. 590, 594, 55 So.2d 228 (1951).   This Court has additionally held that the power to correct an error in the record of a judgment rendered by it at a former term is inherent in the court system.   See Claughton v. Ford, 202 Miss. 361, 30 So.2d 805 (1947).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1285653.html

Moreover and fundamentally, I had a legal right to attend voire dire and that right was violated.

Did Rosa Parks have a legal right to sit in the "colored section?"

That so many remain silent over this closure especially the Mississippi Bar is disturbing and it does not bode well. And not a peep from the Fake News Media.

He cites Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 364, 76 So. 267, 269 (1917), in advising this Court that we have the authority to correct our former decision where it is manifestly wrong.

 ¶ 9. As cited above in Fortune, the “law of the case” doctrine is founded on public policy and the interests of orderly and consistent judicial procedure.  Fortune, 725 So.2d at (¶ 6).   This Court's prior opinion was unpublished;  thus, it is not public policy.   Whether we follow this Court's previous opinion or not will not affect other subsequent parties or negate our ability to set precedent;  thus, we find the “law of the case” doctrine does not apply to this situation.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-court-of-appeals/1318510.html

The "law of the case" doctrine precludes reconsideration of a previously decided issue unless one of three "exceptional circumstances" exists: (1) when substantially different evidence is raised at a subsequent trial, (2) when a subsequent contrary view of the law is decided by the controlling authority, or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_case

The Court's decision is clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice.

However, this Court may, in certain exceptional instances, overturn a previous decision when that decision was manifestly erroneous, and upholding it on subsequent appeal would result in a grave injustice. Simpson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 564 So. 2d 1374, 1377 (Miss. 1990) (overruled in part on other grounds); Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 366, 76 So. 267, 270 (1917).

https://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO56945.pdf

Giles, don't confuse your google search with a law degree. The cases you cite are irrelevant to your argument. You cannot compel the court to declare a mistrial simply because you missed out on voir dire. Loosen than Maker America Great Again hat, I think its cutting off the circulation.

"Giles, don't confuse your google search with a law degree. The cases you cite are irrelevant to your argument. You cannot compel the court to declare a mistrial simply because you missed out on voir dire. Loosen than Maker America Great Again hat, I think its cutting off the circulation."

Don't you confuse your anonymous post with being a judge.

And don't confuse my White Working Class status as being Pro-Trump today. He has attacked Syria, not closed our borders or ended free trade. I've given him a bit more time given his appointment of Gen. Kelly as his Chief of Staff. The verdict is out as to whether we will support him in 2020. And of course he can't win without us.

More precisely I was not allowed to attend voire dire. As it were, I was told to give up my seat on the bus and that's a fundamental violation of my constitutional rights. That you think so little of this egregious and flagrant violation suggests you hail from the corrupt elements who rule Mississippi.

Giles, why were you not allowed to attend the hearing?

"Loosen than Maker America Great Again hat, I think its cutting off the circulation."

This kind of snarky repartee is why Hillary lost the election. It's a substitute for serious thought that is designed to make the wise-cracker feel superior despite the yawning gap of any objective evidence whatsoever for such a proposition. Literally hundreds of millions of such empty witticisms were hurled by these university pedigreed and vacuum sealed empty skulls until the moment it was announced that Hillary had called The Donald to concede the election. An election he won despite the opposition of the entire GOPe as well as the Clintons and their canaille.

I don't need the wise crack in order to feel superior to you Giles. I just have to read your dribble.

Oh yes. During the McDaniel-Cochran race, Mr. Giles was sending out a bunch of unsolicited emails to General Kelly and included quite a few Jacksonions on the cc list. Then he started including his emails to none other than Tom Metzger. That is the crowd he runs with.

So you're saying he is probably on a terror watch list? Got it.