Jackson Jambalaya

Jimmie Gates of the CL wrote about this but apparently left out the fact the medical records were filed under seal.

Funny. It is almost as if Binder is arguing that the DA's office is only pursuing this case because of some nebulous pressure. As if there is no basis for the prosecution or that the matter is a minor issue.

Whole thing was under seal. There is no exhibit A in the file and the entire motion was not in file when I looked last week. The public never had access to any medical records of Mr. Irby.

Medical Records may be released without consent of a patient for:
1. Federal, State or Local Law. We may use and release your health information when required by law.

2. Government Agencies and Law Enforcement. We may release your health information to government agencies and law enforcement.

Please see UMC's HIPAA Policy:
http://umhc.com/oth/Page.asp?PageID=OTH000200

That was hillarious. I have seen attorney's throw HIPPA around before and it is always a threat, no teeth. Check out what a covered entity is; then understand once in the public domain (via Grand Jury), information is public. I really believe she is simply puffing, blowing smoke. A chilling effect? She is going to chill the courts patience with this grandstanding. Poor attorneys always find ways to deceive, great attorneys would simply find a middle ground that meets everyone's interest. This is not zealous representation, it is tomfoolery and should be admonished by the court.

Yep. HIPPA is not very well understood by a lot of people, including attorney's with no experience with it. Reminds of the ole saying when someone doesn't like something, "It ought to be against the law."

I think Green should sanction Binder.

I'm sure the ethics board at the Bar might want to review these allegations.

HIPPA is not well understand but the phrase about law enforcement is in every HIPPA form I've signed.

HIPAA is very well documented. Covered entity is very specific. So are the law enforcement usages.

I should qualify what I wrote as its a shame she can't be sanctioned. My understanding is there is nothing similar to Rule 11 in criminal cases.

Ms. Binder ought to be embarrassed to try this one.

According to her logic, a bank employee could be shot by a bank robber and the State couldn't prove the shot hit the target or a crime happened unless the victim agrees to release their medical records and be interviewed? Or a parent can rape their child and then claim medical proof of the rape falls under medical privacy and can prevent the child from being interviewed because a lawyer hired by the family says the child doesn't want to do that?

Let's face it, if Stuart is that bad off, he isn't competent to instruct Ms Binder on his wishes. If he isn't that bad off, he's fit to be interviewed.

Ms. Binder must have zero respect for Judge Green to trot this out. Let's hope Judge Green isn't as dumb as Ms Binder seems to think.

Ibid. 5:29

Kingfish
Why doesn't someone ask Matt Steffy for his professional legal opinion since he is who the TV relies on for "expert" opinion. Every time the idiot opens his mouth my degree from MC La gets devalued !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They hid him in the closet when I was there......

Neal & Harwell is a one heckuva law firm. Do a little research on Ms. Irby's partners.

5:29 Exactly. "if Stuart is that bad off, he isn't competent to instruct Ms Binder on his wishes. If he isn't that bad off, he's fit to be interviewed." Obviously the DA has sources, too, who are telling them Stuart is able to be interviewed.

He is a joke of a commentator. He's not a practicing lawyer, practiced for a little while fresh out of law school in Florida, yet he is supposedly an "expert". He taught criminal law at MC because they needed someone to teach it as the other professor left so they dumped it on him. He's no criminal law expert at all.

Lisa Binder is a good attorney. I have never known her to be a drama queen. It may be a maneuver, but not because she is a drama queen. She can be tough. Drama (unless it's a technique) is just not her style. FYI - especially for those of you not originally from Jackson, her father was Alvin Binder. He was a great criminal defense attorney. He fought the KKK, defended Wayne Williams - and Jason Robards portrayed him in the movie!

I know. Truth be told, I was somewhat surprised by the motion as she either didn't do her basic research or just plain lied in her response as the medical records were sealed. I'm wondering if the junior associate or clerk didn't write it and she signed it. I've seen her work miracles before so I didn't expect to write this post.

I am just a little bit perplexed as to why they selected Lisa. A great attorney (typically), but is she the right attorney for this type of case? I find it odd.

Ok. The DA wants to interview Stuart Irby. His lawyer says he can't be interviewed. What happens next? Isn't he just going to say he doesn't remember anything anyway?

Isn't he just going to say he doesn't remember anything anyway?

That would be fine. Then he can't massage the truth in Karen's defense.

7:51: That is fine but make him say it.

I'm at a loss to understand why it's important to avoid having Stuart interviewed.
And, if Stuart is brain damaged, he can hardly be running this or shouldn't be.
Are family assets at risk in such a way as to prevent cutting Karen loose?
I would have thought arguing pre-nup ( surely there was one and pre-marital assets were protected), his status as a victim, and that he'd filed ( even though no follow through) for a divorce would be better than this. Are such measures useless in wrongful death civil suits?
This strategy makes it appear Stuart has something to hide rather than appear a victim as well.
Of course, as you pointed out, KF, the medical information is sealed. The ONLY medical information available on Stuart's OR Karen's injuries is from the Caringbridge information posted by Stuart's brother or what the family has chosen to share.
Do Karen and Stuart have common legal representation?

This strategy makes it appear Stuart has something to hide rather than appear a victim as well.

He does. Ask the former JPD Chief, a.k.a. Sheriff Campaign Contribution, about the secret of what happened that night before the depraved heart murder.

well, spill the beans!!!

9:44 - Please don't throw out a comment like and leave us all hangin'!

I think there is a real possibility that s. irby and k. irby become adversaries in this.

K. Irby attorney alluded to her innocence and suggested the accident was unavoidable. That brings up the possibility that K.irby accuses S.Irby as doing something to cause the accident.

One of the laws of gravity, relating to money... the legal process gravitates towards the deep pockets.

In this respect, it makes perfect sense why S.Irby wouldn't want to make any statement at this time.

With respect to Ms. Milner, this whole Stuart interview issue was botched from the beginning.

Any witness has the right to not talk to either side in a criminal case (unless compelled by subpoena to testify at a hearing or trial). Rather than claim that Stuart's medical condition prevented him from speaking with investigators, the response should have been something like this:

"Dear Mr. Prosecutor: Please be advised that Mr. Irby is exercising his right not to speak with the prosecution. Thank you."

That would have been the end of the matter. However, when Stuart's counsel made his medical condition and capacity an issue, she gave the prosecution an argument that his testimony may not be available for trial and needed to be immediately preserved.

The effect of this is that the State is going to get a "free" deposition, likely under oath, that it would not have been entitled to otherwise.

Using the medical condition as an explanation why he couldn't be interviewed was a tactical blunder, and absolutely unnecessary. As far as tactical blunders go, this one is cast iron, and could have a devastating impact on the defense.

Lisa Binder doesn't use Milner since her divorce - just an FYI to previous poster.

Actually to correct 8:54, Lisa was divorced from Wayne Milner for YEARS. She only changed her name back to Binder when she remarried and moved to Nashville. She did not change her name when she divorced.

What happened the night before the accident???? If you think Stuart's close friend, the Sheriff, is going to tell us......you must be crazy.

How do you know about this situation that referring to?

There are many things we don't know about Stuart and officials in Hinds County. Like....who took Stuart home after the domestic violence charges on his birthday in 2008?

KF,

Overall, really good analysis here. Just an aside, however, the State of Mississippi is not Mr. Irby's lawyer. The lawyer/client relationship is based on a fiduciary relationship, and there's nothing like that here.

No apparent authority or agency relationship exists.

Not really an important thing for me to point out, just my legal nerdiness shining through.

It pays to be a Friend of Frank.

As for the privilege, the state is representing Mr. Irby as he is the victim and several attorneys have confirmed to me that is the case.

On foxnews.com it is already reported that the Mom who killed several of her children and nephews by going the wrong way on the interstate in New York- was DRUNK. Accident Date- July 26th- Today's Date- Aug. 4th! Amazing how quickly this was released!

She obviously didn't contribute copious amounts of cash to the requisite local politico's campaign coffers.

KF,

Your friends who are lawyers are wrong. This is not a privilege issue. Privilege exists for private communications between attorney and client.

The State of Mississippi does NOT represent Mr. Irby. He is a victim of a crime... notice I didn't say "alleged." It's pretty clear.

I'm just trying to clear up a common misconception.

Since he is a victim of the crime charged, Justin, doesn't the state have the compelling interest here?

Couldn't one argue that when the state has evidence a felony occurred and the victim then fails to cooperate in the prosecution of that crime , the victim is, for all intents and purposes, obstructing justice?

If such can't be argued, it should be as it seems to me that is exactly what is being attempted.

After all , if Stuart is unable to give an account of the events, what's the concern?

It doesn't take much imagination to suppose the answer.

The State totally has a compelling interest here, as do all citizens. It's just not representing him.

Regarding the obstructing justice comment... I'm not up to snuff on my obstructing justice statutes or my marital competence (note: not privilege) rule to make an informed guess.

well, does the state represent us?
The royal 'WE' in their charges
against Ms Irby. Doesnt S Irby fit into the 'we' category?

not in that sense, no.