Jackson Jambalaya

Circuit Judge Andrew Howorth threw quite the tantrum yesterday as he recused himself from the Lindsey Whiteside case, comparing the Desoto County District Attorney to Iran and North Korea. 

Judge Howorth has been catching hell since he sentenced the former Youth Pastor to three years on house arrest after she was convicted of sexual battery of a child October 14 in Desoto County Circuit Court.   District Attorney Matthew Barton said the sentence was illegal and filed a motion for re-sentencing Thursday.   Judge Howorth's withdrew from the case in an order that was one for the books.  The order opens: 

Since the sentencing hearing in this case, which was conducted on October 13, 2025, there has been a significant amount of traditional media coverage as well as social media coverage of the case and segments of testimony that transpired in the hearing.  The heightened level of public interest in the outcome of this case seems to have occurred, at least in part, as a result of a press conference and other public releases of information in the case by Desoto County District Attorney Matthew Barton.  In the Court's opinion, Barton has been selective and decidedly unnuanced in his portrayal of information in the case.  Barton's impressions regarding the case have been parroted not only by internet "influences", but also by numerous, allegedly responsible, news outlets who don't seem to have conducted any of their own research. 

Uh-huh.  Well, my dear Special Needs Judge, this website actually researched the issue when the D.A. questioned the sentence.  Yours truly spoke to prosecutors in multiple counties and examined the Mississippi Code.  You do know what the Mississippi Code is, right? 

The Code stated clearly, unambiguously, and in no uncertain terms that convictions for sexual battery are barred from consideration for house arrest.  Period.  That is the law.  It doesn't matter whether you use a textualist approach or hallucinate in the penumbras, the Mississippi Code bars house arrest for criminals such as Lindsey Whiteside.  

As for parroting, I seriously doubt these influencers are just "parroting" the D.A.  The more likely scenario is they are outraged by an illegal sentence that is very favorable to a pretty white defendant while others convicted of similar crimes who just happen to be male get twenty years or more in prison. For once a D.A. stood up for justice and called out a judge.  The horror. Apparently, we are supposed to take our beating and like it too. Back to the order. 

Barton complains of the Court's illegal sentence, presumably illegally lenient. Or maybe not.  If the defendant is not legally eligible to be placed on house arrest, she could have received probation with no period of incarceration (house arrest).  It cannot be presumed that Barton would have preferred the Court sentence the defendant to the legal sentence of probation alone.  The implication is that Barton would never knowingly allow something like this to happen as a prosecutor.  And yet, there are examples of cases in Desoto County where Barton's office has actually initiated sentencing recommendations to the Court in sex offender cases that were illegal sentences, asking the Court to sentence sex offenders to far less than the minimum allowed by law.  

Does anyone notice what the judge ignored in his diatribe against justice? Any mention of the Mississippi Code.  Of course, the Code bans the Judge's sentence so he might not be too motivated to mention any law.    It also didn't help Judge Howorth's cause that a black Clinton basketball coach received a 30-year sentence in Hinds County the same day for a similar crime.  

The law is clear: No house arrest for those convicted of sex crimes.   However, the law does not bar probation nor is there a minimum sentence for Whiteside's conviction.  Probation is often used in such cases when the case is falling apart, usually because the parents won't let the child testify.  Such was not the case here. The victim testified in Court and the prosecution had over 60,000 text messages between the victim and her rapist.  It was a solid case that demanded a solid result.  

There is often disagreement with a judge's ruling in a given matter.  In this case, the disagreement has become extreme.  In the court's opinion, part of this extremity has been precipitated by Barton's apparent desire for a high and very public media profile.  There s certainly nothing illegal, maybe not even unethical or improper, about the manner in which Barton promotes his personal views regarding the disposition of cases.  However, since this behavior can result in bringing unusually high attention directed at people involved in the case, including some witnesses as well as the judge, the ability of the judge to continue to preside impartially over the case might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether such perception is accurate.  

Heaven forbid a prosecutor should question the Divine Right of Judges, and their lenient sentences.   Despite Judge Howorth's whining, there was one remedy available if he felt justice was so aggrieved.  Oxford's Citizen of the Year could have issued a gag order as the Courts did in the Greta Bully and DHS scandal cases.  Problem solved but then, that would require the judge to have some backbone, something he may not possess. 

The Court is mindful that this is an unusual step to take, and it should be.  If judges are willing to remove themselves from cases solely as a result of criticism from a prosecutor, then prosecutors could keep getting judges removed, merely by criticizing them in a public forum and eventually land on a judge who will do what the prosecutor wishes. (KF: Hey Chokwe, THIS is forum-shopping.) At that point, the role of judge and prosecutor will have become blurred, rather than completely separate.  This approximates the manner in which courts operate in authoritarian regimes, such as North Korea and Iran.  However, in this particular case, the Court's focus is in the public sentiment  being expressed to the point that the undersigned Judge's fairness and impartiality has been questioned and likely will continue to be questioned.  

Comparing Barton to North Korea and Iran? Oooooook.  There is a difference.  The Mullahs and Dear Leader tell their so-called courts how to rule, public sentiment be damned.  In America, judges are expected to hear cases and try them on their merits, public sentiment be damned as well as it should be. If Judge Howorth cannot ignore "public sentiment" when doing his job, perhaps he is unfit for the bench.  Two different damnings but for completely different reasons.  

Judge Howorth had one last hissy fit in his order as he took his ball and went home. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby recuses itself sue sponte, from further involvement in this case, as well as any other cases, if any, prosecuted by Matthew Barton or any others in his office in Desoto County, in order for a new judge to be appointed in this case.   

Wow.  the learned jurist banned the District Attorney and his prosecutors from his courtroom.  

Apparently Judge Howorth does indeed believe in the Divine Right of Judges.  It's understandable.  Judges sit on the bench for years, living in a bubble.  They make the rules and are God in their courtrooms.  Sure, they might get overturned every once in a while, but such is a small price to pay for having a God complex.  

Plutarch wrote in his Life of Cicero:

When Cicero's extremities were brought to Rome, it chanced that (Mark) Antony was conducting an election, but when he heard of their arrival and saw them, he cried out, "Now let our proscriptions have an end." Then he ordered the head and hands to be placed over the ships' beaks on the   rostra, a sight that made the Romans shudder; for they thought they saw there, not the face of Cicero, but an image of the soul of Antony.

The same can be said of Judge Andrew Howorth for his order cast not the face of Barton but an image of the soul of Judge Howorth.  Diving Right of Judge's indeed.