Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Reversed! (Updated)

 The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed Anthony Fox's conviction. Copy of opinion.  Hinds County District Attorney Jody Owens issued the following statement:

While we are disappointed in the Court of Appeals’ decision today, we respect the Court’s opinion and thank the Court for its careful consideration of this case. The Hinds County District Attorney’s Office’s goal in each case is to seek justice. In prosecuting this matter, our office followed the recommendation and will of the law enforcement agency who investigated this case, the Hinds County Grand Jury that returned a true-bill indictment, and the 12 jurors who received the evidence, were instructed on the law, and unanimously returned a verdict of guilt. In this case, as in every case, our office followed the law and discharged our constitutional and statutory duties.

While we carefully review the Court’s decision and evaluate the appropriate path forward, our thoughts and prayers are with the family of George Robinson.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

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!

Anonymous said...

Hello Mississippi Bar? Sanction Adrienne Wooten?

Anonymous said...

That is great news.

Anonymous said...

That is incredibly good news.

Now he needs to file a large lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The Lumumbas whiff again.

Anonymous said...

Praise Jesus!!

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Anthony Fox for Mayor...

Anonymous said...

What’s the point of a jury trial?

Anonymous said...

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.)

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

Great news!

Anonymous said...

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

Thank God for anonymity, right?

Steve said...

Shakespeare proven right once again…..

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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. . . . .?

Reagan MAGA, not narcissist MAGA said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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!!

Yossarian said...

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

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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.

Shook His Hand Was Done Dancing Like Snoopy At Supper Time said...

538 days. Anthony counted every one of them.

No need to count them any longer.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

@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.

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

@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?

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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

Translation: Lumumba wanted Fox prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

@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.

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

PS Wootens new photo should be labeled DISHONORABLE NOT honorable

Anonymous said...

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..."

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

@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

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

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

Anonymous said...

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.


Recent Comments

Search Jackson Jambalaya

Subscribe to JJ's Youtube channel

Archives

Trollfest '09

Trollfest '07 was such a success that Jackson Jambalaya will once again host Trollfest '09. Catch this great event which will leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Othor Cain and his band, The Black Power Structure headline the night while Sonjay Poontang returns for an encore performance. Former Frank Melton bodyguard Marcus Wright makes his premier appearance at Trollfest singing "I'm a Sweet Transvestite" from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Kamikaze will sing his new hit, “How I sold out to da Man.” Robbie Bell again performs: “Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Bells” and “Any friend of Ed Peters is a friend of mine”. After the show, Ms. Bell will autograph copies of her mug shot photos. In a salute to “Dancing with the Stars”, Ms. Bell and Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith will dance the Wango Tango.

Wrestling returns, except this time it will be a Battle Royal with Othor Cain, Ben Allen, Kim Wade, Haley Fisackerly, Alan Lange, and “Big Cat” Donna Ladd all in the ring at the same time. The Battle Royal will be in a steel cage, no time limit, no referee, and the losers must leave town. Marshand Crisler will be the honorary referee (as it gives him a title without actually having to do anything).


Meet KIM Waaaaaade at the Entergy Tent. For five pesos, Kim will sell you a chance to win a deed to a crack house on Ridgeway Street stuffed in the Howard Industries pinata. Don't worry if the pinata is beaten to shreds, as Mr. Wade has Jose, Emmanuel, and Carlos, all illegal immigrants, available as replacements for the it. Upon leaving the Entergy tent, fig leaves will be available in case Entergy literally takes everything you have as part of its Trollfest ticket price adjustment charge.

Donna Ladd of The Jackson Free Press will give several classes on learning how to write. Smearing, writing without factchecking, and reporting only one side of a story will be covered. A donation to pay their taxes will be accepted and she will be signing copies of their former federal tax liens. Ms. Ladd will give a dramatic reading of her two award-winning essays (They received The Jackson Free Press "Best Of" awards.) "Why everything is always about me" and "Why I cover murders better than anyone else in Jackson".

In the spirit of helping those who are less fortunate, Trollfest '09 adopts a cause for which a portion of the proceeds and donations will be donated: Keeping Frank Melton in his home. The “Keep Frank Melton From Being Homeless” booth will sell chances for five dollars to pin the tail on the jackass. John Reeves has graciously volunteered to be the jackass for this honorable excursion into saving Frank's ass. What's an ass between two friends after all? If Mr. Reeves is unable to um, perform, Speaker Billy McCoy has also volunteered as when the word “jackass” was mentioned he immediately ran as fast as he could to sign up.


In order to help clean up the legal profession, Adam Kilgore of the Mississippi Bar will be giving away free, round-trip plane tickets to the North Pole where they keep their bar complaint forms (which are NOT available online). If you don't want to go to the North Pole, you can enjoy Brant Brantley's (of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance) free guided tours of the quicksand field over by High Street where all complaints against judges disappear. If for some reason you are unable to control yourself, never fear; Judge Houston Patton will operate his jail where no lawyers are needed or allowed as you just sit there for minutes... hours.... months...years until he decides he is tired of you sitting in his jail. Do not think Judge Patton is a bad judge however as he plans to serve free Mad Dog 20/20 to all inmates.

Trollfest '09 is a pet-friendly event as well. Feel free to bring your dog with you and do not worry if your pet gets hungry, as employees of the Jackson Zoo will be on hand to provide some of their animals as food when it gets to be feeding time for your little loved one.

Relax at the Fox News Tent. Since there are only three blonde reporters in Jackson (being blonde is a requirement for working at Fox News), Megan and Kathryn from WAPT and Wendy from WLBT will be on loan to Fox. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both and a torn-up Obama yard sign will entitle you to free drinks served by Megan, Wendy, and Kathryn. Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required. Just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '09 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.


Note: Security provided by INS.

Trollfest '07

Jackson Jambalaya is the home of Trollfest '07. Catch this great event which promises to leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Sonjay Poontang and his band headline the night with a special steel cage, no time limit "loser must leave town" bout between Alan Lange and "Big Cat"Donna Ladd following afterwards. Kamikaze will perform his new song F*** Bush, he's still a _____. Did I mention there was no referee? Dr. Heddy Matthias and Lori Gregory will face off in the undercard dueling with dangling participles and other um, devices. Robbie Bell will perform Her two latest songs: My Best Friends are in the Media and Mama's, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be George Bell. Sid Salter of The Clarion-Ledger will host "Pin the Tail on the Trial Lawyer", sponsored by State Farm.

There will be a hugging booth where in exchange for your young son, Frank Melton will give you a loooong hug. Trollfest will have a dunking booth where Muhammed the terrorist will curse you to Allah as you try to hit a target that will drop him into a vat of pig grease. However, in the true spirit of Separate But Equal, Don Imus and someone from NE Jackson will also sit in the dunking booth for an equal amount of time. Tom Head will give a reading for two hours on why he can't figure out who the hell he is. Cliff Cargill will give lessons with his .80 caliber desert eagle, using Frank Melton photos as targets. Tackleberry will be on hand for an autograph session. KIM Waaaaaade will be passing out free titles and deeds to crackhouses formerly owned by The Wood Street Players.

If you get tired come relax at the Fox News Tent. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both will entitle you to free drinks.Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required, just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '07 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.

Note: Security provided by INS
.