It's showtime. The Mississippi Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Carly Gregg's appeal. A Rankin County jury convicted Gregg of murder in the killing of her mother and attempted murder in the shooting of her stepfather. The hearing is live-streamed below.
Six justices are in attendance. Attorneys Brad Clanton and James Murphy represent Gregg.
Gregg's Oral Argument
* Murphy points out legislature change capital murder law in 2024 for juveniles. Jury given option of sentencing defendant to life in prison or life in prison without parole. Claims it makes the Miller case obsolete.
Miller framework does not apply to this case. The sentencing phase of this case consisted of Court announcing verdict and moving immediately to asking State if it wanted to call first witness. State and defense rested on evidence and went to argument only. Murphy says the "immediate pivot" to sentencing violated Miller. No opportunity to call witnesses, family members, friends, or teachers. There was no pre-sentencing report.
* Entire case from indictment to sentencing took only six months.
* State told jury during sentencing "if you give her life with possibility of parole. We don't know when she will get out. She could get out in as little as a year. You may see her at the supermarket. You may see her at church." Murphy says the statement is improper and inflammatory. There was no strategic reason for using such rhetoric.
* Jury asked how long Gregg would serve if given life with possibility of parole.
* Coleman points out no objections were made at sentencing that would have preserved the matter for appeal. Murphy cites a 1985 case where prosecution gave defense opportunity to present mitigation, which defense declined to do. Court vacated sentence, holding trial court should review all factors for sentencing even if not presented by defense.
.jpg)
* Judge Arthur said "this court does not continue cases." This posture "shaped atmosphere of litigation." Case law says such blanket statements are not allowed.
Halfway through defense oral argument and barely any questioning by the justices.
* Griffis asked where in the record is there a motion to grant continuance. Murphy says there was not such a motion. Griffis asked if there was a reason for a continuance. Defense counsel replies defense could not make objection after such a ruling made. Coleman jumped in and said motions could be made even after the ruling. Murphy says it "chilled" the defense but Griffis disagreed, said he did not see such a chilling in the transcript.
State
Justice King gave prosecution an additional nine minutes. Allison Hartman represents the State.
* Most of the defense's claims are waived because they were not raised in the trial court.
* Argues Supreme Court and Mississippi Supreme Court never spelled out the procedures for a Miller hearing.
* Just because Gregg wants to provide more evidence doesn't mean she didn't receiver everything she was "entitled to."
* Gregg withdrew her own jury instructions and agreed to the State's instructions.
* "It's a stretch" to say Judge said he would not continue the case. Gregg never moved for a continuance. Thus nothing ripe for Court to consider such because the motion was not submitted. ''
State rested with eight minutes to spare.
17 comments:
Wannabe justice court judge giving the commentary.
As I have said before, Dewey Arthur prosecuted this case from the bench. He did everything he could to see that she got convicted and sentenced to life without parole. And yes, Justice Coleman, she was sentenced to life without parole regardless of how you read the damn sentencing order.
Problem was not the judge. Arthur actually helped her out from the bench. Todd and Camp screwed around with the shrink's report and submitted after the deadline. He took it anyway. He gave them breaks on other issues. Hell, he should have sanctioned them for the phony Brady motion. He can't make the defense present mitigation at sentencing either.
Her trial lawyers were complete wingnuts. Not telling her to take to plea offer or they’d withdraw was awful. They were either really dumb, glory hunters or both. But there are a lot of wingnut lawyers and it doesn’t necessarily mean ineffective assistance of counsel.
Is her best argument ineffective assistance of counsel?
Thats basically her only argument
Was Camp there because he was the only attorney with trial experience? A DUI attorney was he not out over his skis?
Both of her attorneys were in way over their heads. A DUI attorney and a domestic relations attorney had no business in that case. My understanding is that her trial attorneys were working on a pro bono basis, but that doesn't alleviate them of the duty to provide constitutionally effective counsel. It appears that her attorneys were in it more for the publicity than to anything else.
Thanks for posting. Pretty cool that the State's attorney's dad (an esteemed local weatherman) was there to hear his daughter argue before the MSSCT. Also, not a bad idea optic to have him out there on her side of the aisle.
3:53: Exactly. If the kid had just thrown herself on the mercy of the court and gotten a public defender, she would have been much better served. Who knows, she might have wound up with Sellers as her lawyer as he does PD work in Rankin County.
If released on home confinement I would take her in, but how does a person sleep with one eye open?
You can’t give a 14 year old life without the possibility of parole.
You can, just have to have a Miller hearing first.
KF there’s no doubt of her guilt and she has to be held accountable but a life sentence with no possibility for parole for a 14 year old? I never once heard of such a thing.
Even if the 'without possibility of parole' is changed to giving her that possibility, I think she still must serve a long sentence. The crimes were just heinous in nature. To shoot your own mother in the face three times is just brutal.
Biden/Obama-era Justice Department positions generally supported limits on extreme juvenile punishments. Do you think the sentence will be commuted?
This is a deeply disturbed 14 year old. A child. A cold-blooded murderer who showed no remorse. But a child. Any idiot, even those on the MSSC, should instantly know that LWP is not the appropriate sentence. Just as any idiot should know instantly that she should not be running the streets. The obviously appropriate sentence is situational-appropriate confinement until such time as actual professionals can say with reasonable certainty that she has successfully been treated, rehabilitated, and punished. That does not mandate that she die in prison but it does not mandate that she should not. IOW, life without parole is not the correct - legally or socially - just sentence in this situation. That is the only question truly before the Court in this case. Reverse the incorrect sentence and remand for (hopefully) a more legally-correct and legally-sound one. If necessary, rinse and repeat. And if necessary, it becomes a reasonable question as to why it is.
Post a Comment