A defendant in the DHS scandal tried to plead guilty buuuuuuuuuut Hinds County Circuit Judge Adrienne Wooten had other ideas.
A Hinds County grand jury indicted Anne McGrew for three counts of conspiracy and fraudulent statements a year ago. The indictment accuses her of helping the defendants in the DHS scandal embezzle $2 million in state funds by producing fraudulent documents. She was the accountant at the Mississippi Community Education Center.
District Attorney Jody Owens and McGrew filed a joint motion for continuance. last week. The motion revealed the rejected of the plea agreement:
1. That this matter had been scheduled a status/plea-by date for December 17, 2020 and a trial date of February 1, 2021 at 1 ;00 p.m.
2. On December 161 2020, via email the Defense advised the Court that they had agreed to accept the State's plea offer in this Cause and as a consequence thereof the within matter was removed from the February, 1, 2021, trial docket.
3. On January 25, 2021, the Defendant, Ann McGrew, filed with the Court her fully executed petition to enter a guilty plea in this Cause in accordance with the tenns and conditions that said Defendant had agreed to after plea negotiations with the State.
4. On January 26, 2021, the parties were advised by the Court that the Court would not accept the plea agreement reached by the parties in this Cause,
The two parties went back to the drawing board and are working on a new plea agreement that hopefully will satisfy Judge Wooten.
21 comments:
I'm confused as to why a judge would not accept a guilty plea.
She's white; maybe judge wanted stiffer sentence.
@6:47 maybe she deserves a stiffer sentence ????
The Judge probably recognizes that the local Hinds County DA office does not have the resources or the skills set to effectively prosecute such massive fraud. Now that Mike Hurst is gone, it is time for the Hinds County DA to hand this massive fraud case to the Feds.
6:47. Without a doubt......
Just remember, in Hinds County it's always about WHO not WHAT. Remember that.
The Olympic winners of this thread jumped on early: 6:47; 8:42 and 9:49! These are gold, silver and bronze winning posts. I would personally put 9:49 as gold, but folks can argue that all three winners are gold.
9:16 In the less than a year the Hinds DA indicted the scandal and already got two guilty pleas but for the Judge interfering with the last one. The feds would be still investigating the case!
I truly wish some of y'all would go sit and watch the circus that is Wooten's courtroom. She is very disrespectful to attorneys on both sides, and is quickly turning the bar against her. She may be fine in civil matters, but judging from what some in the legislature have said about her I highly doubt she handles any matters with the respect and dignity the bench stands for....
It just amazes me how some ppl on here automatically assume a lawyer is legit and knowledgeable just because they are elected to the bench. Read the comments above. The underlying presumption that the judge knows better (without a stated basis) is asinine and comical if you've ever been in her courtroom.
I'd like to know the offer Wooten refused to accept. Judge Weill, who held that seat prior to Wooten, did some of the same and the SC (usually) quickly reversed him. So good luck with that, Adrienne. I truly wish Wooten the best. Having a knowledgeable and respectful judge on the bench makes case work much easier. However, the way she is going about it is not the answer. I can't say that Wooten will be reversed like Weill, but I can say without hesitation, Judge Wooten is sending many many votes to her opponent in the next election.
10:51 -- Are you assuming they are not currently investigating this case? Have you ever noticed how when the feds indict someone the case usually ends in a plea?
I know someone who use to say the federal government is like a battleship in the Mississippi, once they get their guns aimed at you, you are done. He was an AUSA, Criminal Chief for a long time.
"... before the Feds even get an indictment."
@10:51, fixed it for you.
It's clear some of you just player lawyer on blogs. Judges, while not often, do from time to time reject pleas. Its not racists when white judges in Madison/Rankin and other counties do it, so its not not FAIR AT ALL to say it's racist when a black judge does it.
Pull one case where the supreme court reversed Weil or any other judge because they rejected a plea. You wont find it because there is not a constitutional right to a plea. Every judge has the discretion so say I am not accepting this plea.
As an attorney who has practiced in front of Wooten, her courtroom is not a circus. It's a courtroom. There are pleas, trials, and etc. Cases move. If you sit in her courtroom one day, you must actually learn.
I haven't practiced in front of Wooten, but I know this: When an attorney makes a settlement offer, the other side needs to know that the offer is backed by the authority to make it, or the settlement process is useless.
Maybe Wooten rejected the plea agreement because she found that the State failed to set forth a sufficient factual basis upon which to base the guilty plea, or that the guilty plea was not freely and voluntarily given. I don't know the answer to that.
On the other hand, if she's acting arbitrarily and/or capriciously against certain defendants, based on race or social standing, or otherwise abusing her discretion, then I think it's incumbent on the attorneys practicing before her to call that out.
Normally if a judge rejects a plea it’s because it was too lenient on the defendant in the judges opinion. Madison/Rankin judges avoid this conundrum by issuing a “Minimum recommended sentence” memorandum that was kept from defense attorneys. It basically listed the crimes and what the DA better not offer better than or the plea would be rejected. Basically the equivalent of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines but with Madison/Rankin flavor. Very spicy. I wish Kingfish could get a copy of that memorandum. Any guess what Judge issued that?
I know someone who use to say the federal government is like a battleship in the Mississippi, once they get their guns aimed at you, you are done.
Remind your friend who 'used to say' that of the number of Yank boats that sunk to the bottom of rivers, streams and canals 155 years ago.
Judge Weil routinely rejected plea deals ....
For more on whether and when a court must accept a plea agreement, please see the following:
Kline v. State, 741 So. 2d 944 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) ("agreements between the State and defendants must be upheld by the trial court where a criminal defendant has detrimentally relied upon the agreement. . . . while there is no constitutional right to enforcement of a plea bargain, contractual principles of reliance may, under certain conditions, be enforced against the prosecution.").
To 11:54, here are a few of the cases you asked for, which do indeed exist, and are cited in Kline:
Moody v. State, 716 So. 2d 592 P16 (Miss. 1998) (reversed)
Edwards v. State, 465 So. 2d 1085 (Miss. 1985) (reversed)
Boyington v. State, 389 So. 2d 485 (Miss. 1980) (conviction affirmed, remanded for re-sentencing to probation)
9:41 I don't see where Ann McGrew detrimentally relied on anything from Jody's office.
And, everybody should remember that Shad did not want Mike Hurst within 200 miles of this case.
When the hell is the trial? The rest is merely parenthetical blabbering.
12:46, The cited cases explain detrimental reliance in the context pf plea agreements. It seems to typically take the form of cooperating with the prosecution, providing State's evidence, etc.
I don't know whether the defendant did that in this case. I was trying to shed some light on comments that implied judges have the absolute right to reject plea agreements, and could not be reversed on appeal.
-9:41
Wooten is the female version on Mark Baker! I served with both of em.
Post a Comment