Court: Gregg lawyers used "trial by ambush"
Rankin County Circuit Judge Dewey Arthur denied Carly Gregg's motion for a new trial. A Rankin County jury sentenced her to life in prison without parole after convicting her of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and tampering with evidence in the death of her mother and shooting of her stepfather.
Gregg's lawyer, Bridget Todd, moved for a new trial and in the alternative, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Todd argued:
* Gregg was not tried by a jury of her peers since Mississippi law forbids minors from serving as jurors.
* Gregg "timely disclosed her witness list" to the state 13 days prior to trial on September 3. The discovery was due on August 20 per Judge Arthur's order. The state did not produce its witness list until September 8. Todd complained the Court found Gregg "engaged in a willful discovery violation" in order to gain a tactical advantage at trial. The Court struck two defense witnesses. Todd called the "radical sanction" improper and a gross violation of Gregg's Sixth Amendment rights.
* The Court erred in granting all of the state's pre-trial, trial, and post-trial motions while denying all of same motions by the defense. However, the defense repeatedly filed motions and responses to motions after the deadlines.
Judge Arthur pondered it all and said nice try.
His opinion stated he excluded the testimony of Vicki Breeland and James Floyd, Carly Gregg's grandmother and uncle because the defense repeatedly refused to play by the rules:Both witnesses were closely associated with the Defendant (maternal grandmother and maternal uncle). The Court instructed the Defendant to provide reciprocal discovery on not less than three separate occasions. On the date of the pre-trial conference no substance of these witnesses' testimony was "provided. When the Court asked for the substance of the testimony the Defendant argued that it would prejudice her case before the Jury to provide this information. The Court allowed the Defendant to present a significant amount of testimony that was not turned over promptly. The Court found and believed that most, if not all, of the reciprocal discovery was not promptly turned over to obtain a tactical advantage. However, letting a Defendant tell the Court that it may prejudice her case before the Jury to provide the substance of the witnesses' testimony is a bridge too far. Trial by ambush must remain in the grave.
The Court pointed out it bent over backwards to help the 15 year-old defendant even when her lawyers broke the rules. Judge Arthur noted he allowed the defense to submit its expert witness for an insanity defense even though he was not "hired until after the discovery deadline passed."
Ms. Todd claimed Carly's father, Kevin Gregg, provided exculpatory information after the trial to WLBT. Kevin was interviewed by WLBT on September 26. Kevin allegedly said in the unaired portion of the interview that Carly was placed in equestrian therapy as a child "due to experiencing auditory hallucinations (hearing voices). The new "information" supports Dr. Clark's diagnosis of an unspecified schizophrenic disorder. Since the new "information" would "likely" lead to a new trial, Gregg is entitled to a new trial.
However, WLBT said the claim was just that, a claim. WLBT interviewed Kevin Gregg via Zoom. Thus the entire interview was recorded. WLBT reported no mention was made of the alleged "auditory hallucinations" by Kevin in the interview after reviewing the transcript, interviewing the reports, and reviewing the Zoom recording. WLBT tried to contact Todd and found out why she made the claim in her motion but Todd never responded. The tv station posted the entire interview with Kevin Gregg on its website.
Todd did not include any affidavits, recordings, or evidence of Kevin Gregg making such a statement in her motion . Judge Arthur made short work of the allegations:
Defendant points to alleged statements made by Kevin Gregg. The Court reviewed the statements and finds these statements would not have probably produced a different result at trial.
Reasonable diligence could have discovered any statement by the Defendant's father, Kevin Gregg.
Todd's co-counsel, Kevin Camp, filed a notice of appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court Friday.
Kingfish note: Judge Arthur should have sanctioned Gregg's lawyers for the bogus Brady motion made during trial and the probable fabrication of Kevin Gregg's statements.
29 comments:
Ain't being a grown up, by definition under the law, a bitch.
The judge wouldn't allow Carly to use an insanity defence because she tested postive for marajuana when entering the youth detention facility. I don't know about you but I'm not aware of people going insane from smoking marajuana. A new trial should be allowed based on that alone.
FAFO.
Too bad it's not the attorneys doing the FO.
15 y/o and life in prison without parole. Just think about that. Not sure what her life expectancy will be but that could be a LONG time at the same address.
Judge has done a great job with this case.
She murdered her mom too early is all I can tell you. It ain’t long enough. Death penalty if she was an adult.
that never happened. why make something up when the pretrial hearings are available for everyone to watch which immediately proves you wrong?
That is a damn lie.
4:42 So what age is acceptable for parole on a murder & attempted murder charge in your opinion. The jury made this decision and frankly did a damn good job! IMO
Somebody tell her lawyers to defile the notice of appeal. If she has questions about it, tell her to ask the public defender.
"Somebody tell her lawyers to defile..."
They apparently know exactly how to do that.
"Judge Arthur should have sanctioned Gregg's lawyers for the bogus Brady motion made during trial and the probable fabrication of Kevin Gregg's statements."
No, judges should not be sanctioning attorneys for swinging for the fence or even the parking lot. And "bogus" and "probable" are subjective opinion in this particular situation. If the former had not been addressed as quickly as it was or the latter can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, sanctions would be in order. The former is foreclosed and the latter is still open. From the cheap seats, Arthur seems to have used his discretion admirably and sustainably. His role is not to advocate for or against, so allow him to not do that. And be satisfied with him not doing that.
There is no way her lawyer passed the bar! Carly was tried as an adult. So why on gods green earth would she complain because minors Weren’t on the jury? They tried her as an adult and she judged by adults!
"The judge wouldn't allow Carly to use an insanity defence because she tested postive for marajuana when entering the youth detention facility. I don't know about you but I'm not aware of people going insane from smoking marajuana. A new trial should be allowed based on that alone."
October 21, 2024 at 4:39 PM
Your Post Makes No Sense At All...
Straws, grasp and miss.
Because it's not true. She used the insanity defense, jury just did not buy it. In fact, the marijuana drug screen could only be used for impeachment or rebuttal. This case isn't going to be reversed due to the judge. Ineffectiveness of counsel? Possibly but then that would require Gregg to have different lawyers.
Really? I dispute that! He has done nothing but prosecuted from the bench. He clearly wanted to see her convicted, and he stopped at almost nothing to see that it was done.
Really? I dispute that! He has done nothing but prosecuted from the bench. He clearly wanted to see her convicted, and he stopped at almost nothing to see that it was done. How so?
Again Judge Dewey, Jury and Kathryn Stewart did an excellent job! There was Absolutely NO BIAS! Facts were presented according to proper rules & instructions! The jury followed to the T, exactly as instructed. The jury then asked questions in a proper form, & was responded by Judge Dewey allowing both Defense & Prosecution to respond. The jury further deliberated & reached a verdict. Camp is doing his best to fight for Carly with the web & hole she dug for herself. Her dead mother, father, stepfather, grandparents had no input in her heinous choice to murder & attempt murder. Carly had no problem asking for things like any other teenager. She just took being told No to another level. If a parent denies allowing minors to smoke pot, begin having promiscuous sex or things that are improper at that age then I commend her parents. Just like the kids killed in Columbine High School for standing up & refusing to deny Christ. Dylan Klebold & Eric Harris were raised much the same & Ashley May have just saved an entire school by her courage to say no & not turn a blind eye. May Ashley rest in peace and Carly’s family accept her verdict and choice SHE ALONE made that day.
8:36 speaks from emotions. Perhaps a relative of Carly that had no compassion for the mother.
KF, the Judge, and myself speak from a place of facts.
It's hard for emotionally driven people to comprehend facts don't care about feelings.
I'm not going to review everything reported and certainly not the entire transcript to form an opinion of Arthur's impartiality throughout the trial and on every issue. My comments above related only to the specific points I addressed. I will say that I wouldn't be surprised if mistakes were made by all involved. But that isn't the end of the inquiry. Were the mistakes made of such character to make the trial impermissibly unfair? Defendants (and the parties in a civil matter) are entitled to a fair trial, not an absolutely perfect one. Again from the cheap seats, I haven't seen any mistakes reported that gives me heartburn over "fairness." I have seen a lot of commentary from fellow cheapseaters that does.
In our (Mississippi and US) legal system, discouraging new legal theories or arguments for new ways to look at old law would be a serious problem. I would rather see judges tilt toward allowing it as much as possible, as long as it does not in and of itself create unreasonable unfairness for the "side" which must answer it. In a criminal case it would be hard, even disingenuous, to argue that novelty of argument was "unfair" to make the state/prosecution answer.
@10:10 AM, Judges are to apply current law. They are not to make new laws from the bench.
Im saddened by this. Dewey is Dousy.
"@10:10 AM, Judges are to apply current law. They are not to make new laws from the bench."
Google "case of first impression." Don't confuse case law with statutory laws. "Judges," at least in those at the appellate level, make "new law" all the time. See, e.g., as one semi-recent and particularly divisive example, Roe followed by Dobbs.
Does Todd really believe teenagers should decide the fate of another human? When you become old enough to serve on a jury, you’ve been a teenager and been around enough teenagers to qualify as a peer. Surely Todd has more common sense than this and just saying dumb shit because she lost.
Todd’s career may never recover from this. I just hope Camp’s career isn’t tanked by proximity right along with hers.
Did Carly Gregg's defense attorneys ever really bother to explain to her why the insanity defense is used so rarely, namely because it is so rarely successful?
Todd has made me remember how shockingly dumb some attorneys are.
She and Carlos should open a practice together.
I say BS to Kevin Camp saying there wasn’t enough time foe a brain scan. Carly didn’t go to trial for months. I might believe the family didn’t want to pay for scan. If Carly was still on insurance since she was the one who shot her mother 3 times, insurance may have refused to pay.Just be honest Camp. We are sick of finger pointing when there was a good plea deal offer on the table but no one encouraged Carly to accept it. Kathryn Stewart, Judge Arthur and Jury were more than reasonable.Get over yourself!
Post a Comment