Jackson Jambalaya

A travesty of justice! Good God I hope the Mississippi Supreme Court grants certiorari if it is sought by D.A. Owens and reinstates this legitimate conviction. His lawyers should be ashamed!

Hello Mississippi Bar? Sanction Adrienne Wooten?

That is great news.

That is incredibly good news.

Now he needs to file a large lawsuit.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!

The Lumumbas whiff again.

Praise Jesus!!

Reversed and RENDERED. Indicting this man was a travesty of justice brought to you by our idiot mayor.

So he will get back pay & be reinstated full benefits?

Thank God, at least some judges have a brain cell.
So happy for him!

It is very unfortunate that Anthony Fox and his family had to endure such an injustice. He was a dedicated police officer who received many accolades for his genuine desire to serve the City of Jackson.

Anthony Fox for Mayor...

What’s the point of a jury trial?

1:37 - and just WHO do you think can file ceritoria? DA Owens doesn't control this case once it went up on appeal; the State AG handles all Circuit Court criminal appeals.

And - the AG has agreed with Fox that the evidence was insufficient.

Therefore - my advice - is go back to your shadetree practice of law, because evidently other than knowing how to spell ceritoria, you don't know shit about what you are opining on. (Also evidenced by your belief that the evidence proved the 'crime' and that the COA ruling is wrong, but we won't talk about that idiocy.)

Help me understand why the groundswell of people cheering for this man's conviction to be upheld. I don't know any of the players.

Great news!

He spelled it correctly, 4:20. You misspelled it twice.

Thank God for anonymity, right?

Shakespeare proven right once again…..

Any opinions/comments about theory that Fox knew about the mayors dirty business and Ol Chok wanted him locked up ?

If Lynn was right to confess error, why did it take 62 pages and the most narrow majority in recent COA to get there?

Well, what an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, the majority erred in its analysis or application of the standard used to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to decide the case, as the dissent points out. The majority, if it was going to engage in credibility choices, should have at most granted a new trial. The really interesting question is whether the district attorney can petition for rehearing and cert. That office apparently filed an amicus brief, which might have been too clever. I don’t think an amicus is going to have the ability to stand in the shoes of a party. However, the real party in interest is the State, and the DA represents the State too. So. . . . .?

5:15 yes. I was making a point; gues it went over your head.

He did know 'how' to spell it, but he didn't know much more. I purposfully misspelled it to say spelling it isn't enough knowledge. Sorry my attempt at a ironic humor, or whatever it should be labeled, went over your head.

But the point is - DA Owens can't ask; only the AG could. And from the pleadings, I assume that ain't happening.

Did M’fingers clerk read the record, bench memo, or do her own research before drafting this dissent? Piss poor effort, but what should we expect from this judge?

Can we talk about how the dissent was written by the old, white, Rankin county judge?? Joined by the three liberal judges...

Glad to see this injustice overturned. Maybe the DA’s office wouldn’t be so overwhelmed if they prosecuted more actual criminals instead of LEO’s who are only trying to do their job and protecting the public!

The massive shortage of police officers in Jackson is no mystery — cops see what has been done to Fox!!

Let me break this down for the non-lawyers. Legally, this case demonstrates that, in terms of legal acumen, when Lynn Fitch says something is a sure thing, 6 out of 10 educated jurist tend to agree but need 41 pages to make their point.

60% isn’t bad unless it’s graded

Geez, even when Lynn tries to lose she barely succeeds.

Total nonsense…. Just finished reading the opinion. Majority broke their backs to let this guy go as did the AG. If he wasn’t a cop then he would have been denied. No shocker that Emfinger would have kept him locked up. That’s good ole Rankin County.

538 days. Anthony counted every one of them.

No need to count them any longer.

1:37, Why would Fox’s lawyers be ashamed? They did their job, and apparently well enough to obtain an acquittal. That is what criminal defense lawyers do, represent the accused. They don’t represent you or the public. They represent the accused.

Since it appears that most of the people commenting here are not lawyers and not familiar with how trial court decisions are (supposed) to be reviewed on appeal, it may help to point out some basics. First and foremost, an appeal is not something like a second trial in a higher court. What happens when a party appeals a final judgment of a lower court is that he or it identifies specific issues in the course of the case in the lower court where he thinks the lower court committed error in resolving those issues. In the appellate courts, there are various "standards of review", as they are known, that are applicable to resolving those issues in the appeal. When an appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, what he is alleging is that the State failed to present enough evidence to permit the jury to decide the case. So, basically, the allegation is that the trial court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict, a request for a peremptory instruction, or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The standard of review applicable to such a claim is the same for all those and happens to be the same in the trial court and in the appellate courts, Stated simply, the standard is that the evidence and reasonable inference from the evidence in support of the verdict are to be taken as true. The courts are not to engage in credibility assessments, nor consider weight of the evidence. If the evidence and inferences from the evidence, take as true for purposes of the motion, would support a verdict of guilty by a reasonable juror, then the motion for a directed verdict is to be denied. And on appeal, using the same analysis, is to be denied. The problem with the majority opinion is that it appears to have done exactly what it should not have done, which was to engage in a credibility/weight consideration. That was the gist of the dissent, and the dissent was not wrong. But there is another motion that is commonly made in the trial courts after a verdict, which is a motion for a new trial on the basis that the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The analysis there is much different. The motion assumes the sufficiency of the evidence but asserts that while the evidence might have been sufficient it was opposed by "overwhelming" evidence. What that motion seeks is a new trial, while the sufficiency of the evidence claim seeks, in effect, an acquittal. It is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court whether to grant a new trial; on appeal the standard of review is known as "abuse of discretion", which is a high burden to meet for an appellant. The majority opinion pointed out any number of problems with the credibility of the State's case, but credibility is a matter for a jury to determine. What the majority should have done, in light of its not unfounded issues with the State's case, was to have found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing a new trial. The evidence in support of the verdict was sufficient, if believed by the jury (keeping in mind that credibility and weight of evidence is for it to decide), but that doesn't always mean that the verdict was not "contrary to the great weight of the evidence". I think the majority, rather than making a mess of the standard of review for sufficiency, should have held that a new trial be granted.

@6:11 - because there are two Judges (I won't bother to name them because then KFwould probably have to refuse to post my comment) that would rather rule on race than law. OK, make that three. And then, there is former Judge M'finger who as a former judge ---- well, I don't know. Can't say how he could come up with this weak dissent and written opinion. His opinion that you should always defer to the benefit of the prosecution, even when the evidence isn't adequate --- who knows what he was thinking.

@4:18 - the same point of an APPEAL COURT.

807 - majority didn't have to work too hard (no back breaking, other than constant response to Emfingers wrong approach that whatever the prosecution says, take it as biblical absolute). Yes, they took a lot of pages to say this, because after all the other pieces of paper wasted by the DA, the court headed by a so-called judge that has never understood her job as upholding the law, and all the briefs.

When the court - be it either the smaller COA or the big guys upstairs at SCMS - and they have a case that is this deep into the public's perception, they are going to take a lot of time to state what and why they did what they did.

If there wasn't a dissent - whcih was probably a third of those pieces of paper you are so worried about -- there wouldn't have been a need for a third of the pieces of paper of those who wrote the opinion that mattered. The rest of those wasted pieces of paper were spent on trying to say why Emfinger and his liberal judges were not correct in their arguments to the contrary.

@3`4- yes, I will readiy admit that I am not a lawyer, but has recently been quoted by others here - I can read. It doesn't take someone who went to OM and was admitted without having to pass the bar, or someone who somehow came out of OM or others and actually passed the bar - to understand the law.

Your analysis is pretty good - and on point. But I disagree that the result should have been Remanded rather than Reversed. You skip past the fact that Fox asked for a JNOV which allowed the COA to review ALL the evidence (unlike what the dissent agrees) and that an appeals court is set to review everything IN THE BEST LIGHT OF THE PROSECUTIOHN, which is an ok standard in my view but is also a standard with certain cavets - in this case, the COA is entitled to look at ALL the evidence, not just the two 'eyewitnesses' reports of what supposedly happened.

Yes, Emfinger says that you should take the two eyewitness reports as fact and ignore the four experts, including the one presented by the PROSECUTION, not just by the defense, as to what happened.

Why are you arguing in your dissertation that the COA was wrong to look at that testimony along with he other testimony and weigh it? Are you ignoring the fact that this was an appeal of the JNOV, not of the trial courts?

802 this case, just like DOBBS, has nothing to do with Lynn Fitch. Yes, her folks recognized that this was a bad result in a Hinds County Circuit Court, and should not be argued, but dont think for a minute that Lyn herself and her red dress had anything to do with that determination.

And, true, when the AG -- I believe some true 'staff' lawyers realized that this case shouldn't be argued (kinda like DA Owens statement released today alleged without saying) it was a GREAT WIN FOR LYNN. I'm sure her campaign office will jump on this just like they will the DOBBs decision which was actually an action by the MS Legislature long before she became AG and yes, her office obained a win. But - this is Mississippi after all, what really matters is that red dress and the fact that republican women think it matters.

Somebody ought to look to see how much time Lynn herself actually spent on Dobbs. And for tha matter, on thie case with FOX. But it doesn't matter in the end - the Mississippi Republican Women will vote for her anyway just because they are impressed with her red dress. Just as her multiple husbands have evidently been impressed. Problem is - our AG shouldnt be based on her red dress appearance, or the decor of the office (either office) but ability to manage a law firm of several hundred lawyers.

... our office followed the recommendation and will of the law enforcement agency who investigated this case ...

Translation: Lumumba wanted Fox prosecuted.

@9:53
Yes, you are not a lawyer. It would take too long (3 years?) to explain it. But basically, the court of appeals is a court of correction. They cannot just pick a standard of review that they think is best. They apply 200 years of MSSC precedent. Only the MS supreme court can announce new standards.

Hello Mississippi Bar? Sanction Adrienne Wooten? You are correct & Wooten should be disbarred and or sanctioned! She is a disgrace to MS!

PS Wootens new photo should be labeled DISHONORABLE NOT honorable

I just hunted for an hour for this statement in the dissent. I'm just interested in the case and the text out of an attempt to learn. Anyway, this surprised me, as I would not have thought review of a case on appeal would be made "...in the light most favorable to the prosecution". Where else in our system of justice, does the system consider the prosecution to the detriment of the accused?

Here is the quote I found surprising: “When reviewing a challenge for sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must
determine whether, ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution..."

I am enjoy the comments on Emfingers conclusion. Question to the lawyers (mainly the ones that have worked with him) is he the male equivalent of L. Fitch ? I am from Rankin county and the lawyers over here were glad to get him out of his judgeship.

@7:06

There the standard in 50 states and all federal courts. It’s another way of saying “light most favorable to the verdict.” It’s because questions of fact are in the hands of the jury ie. the people who were there and heard saw the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses, rather than 10 appellate court judges on a cold record which just happened

Wait until all the evidence comes out that the court and prosecution refused to allow in the trial that would have cleared him. This was a setup from the beginning and this is the just the beginning in several wins for Fox.

Justice in Hinds county always seems to be an elusive goal. Especially for law enforcement officers. Guilty until proven innocent.
Happy to see some semblence of sanity is still present.

if you miss this you lose, if you say that you lose. It's all gotcha. the law will make your head explode. mine hurts every day. it does appear that the right thing was done here despite all the noise and wandering legalese

9:53. Thank you for your backhanded compliment. However, what I don't think you understand is that every time the "sufficiency of the evidence" is questioned, the evidence and inferences from that evidence in favor of the prosecution (or verdict when the issue is raised on appeal) is ALWAYS the determinative issue. So, even if the defense, in its case (when it presents one) produces a mountain of evidence in support of a verdict of not guilty, that is NEVER, at any point, taken into consideration when determining whether the State's evidence was "sufficient" to put the case to the jury. You might reasonably ask that, if that is the case, then what is the point of raising the issue after raising it at the conclusion of the State's case. That is a good question, and, honestly, I don't know why except to request the trial court to review its prior decision. Even if a State's witness were to recant material testimony, all that would do is to create an issue of fact for the jury. The answer to your question, if you were to ask it, is because its always been done that way. About the only way I can think of where the State's evidence would become "insufficient" after having been found "sufficient" would be if the State withdrew evidence during the defense case. Anyway, at no time, ever, is one court or another to assay weight and credibility when determining sufficiency. The standard does refer to what a "reasonable juror" could find. However, the question is what a "reasonable juror" could find on the basis of the State's evidence alone.