The Attorney General decision to throw in the towel on the Anthony Fox case will not go unchallenged after all. Hinds County District Attorney turned Fox's appeal into a three-way fight after he filed an amicus curiae brief with the Mississippi Court of Appeals opposing the Attorney General.
A Hinds County grand jury indicted former JPD officer Anthony Fox for second-degree murder in the death of George Robinson in 2019. Circuit Judge Adrienne Wooten presided over the case. A jury convicted Fox of culpable negligent manslaughter. Fox appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.
Although it represents the prosecution, the Attorney General took the unprecedented step of asking the Court to overturn the trial court verdict last week.
Owens filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief and the brief with the Mississippi Court of Appeals yesterday as he argued he and the trial court have an interest in this case that is not "adequately represented" by the Attorney General.
The briefs submitted by the District Attorney and Attorney General paint substantially different pictures of what took place on the night of January 13, 2019.
Bernard Randall and an accomplice murdered Reverend Anthony Longino as he opened the doors to his Hill Avenue church on Sunday morning, January 13, 2019. The murder shocked Jackson. The SWAT team deployed to the Washington Addition area to search for the suspects.
The D.A.'s brief claims 62 year-old George Robinson "was having a cookout at his home on Jones Avenue." He suffered from a stroke the previous week that left him "partially paralyzed."
JPD officers Anthony Fox, Lincoln Lampley, and Desmond Barney saw a group of people at the Robinson home and decided to interview them. Robinson was sitting in his car, talking to a woman standing outside the vehicle when Fox approached. The brief states:
Lampley approached the barbeque grill intending to show them a picture of the murder suspect; meanwhile, Fox approached Robinson's vehicle presumably to do the same. T. 497; 502. However, before Lampley could begin the conversation with the individuals, he "heard a commotion" consisting of "loud commands coming from Detective Fox." T. 502-504. Lampley stated that he observed Fox attempting to secure Robinson's left arm and remove him from the vehicle and heard commands to stop reaching." T.504. Ronnie Arnold, who was attending the barbeque, and Connie Bolton, who watched the events from the porch of her house, both witnessed Fox forcibly remove Robinson from the car and slam him headfirst into the concreate. T. 377;421; 445-446. According to Arnold, before Robinson was forcibly removed from the vehicle by Fox, he heard Robinson saying "I can't move too fast, sir" and "I just had a stroke" and observed Robinson attempting to unbuckle his seatbelt. T. 377; 421. Bolton also testified that, after Robinson was "slammed" head first into the pavement, she witnessed Fox "stomp" Robinson with a booted foot. T. 468. At that point, Bolton took her children inside so they would not be exposed to the violence of the altercation. T. 443. When Bolton returned, she began recording the aftermath with her cell phone. T. 451. On the recording, Bolton can be heard saying, "they really worked him over" and the police were "kicking people ass." T. 453.
Fox and the AG stated in their briefs Fox saw Robinson reaching for something between the seats of his car. Fearing it might be a gun, Fox told Robinson to show his hands. Robinson allegedly would not comply. Fox dragged him out of the car and placed him on the ground. Robinson stopped resisting after he placed something in his mouth. However, the District Attorney disputes the claim of drug possession:
Despite Fox's later claim that he witnessed a drug transaction and that, during the struggle, Robinson put something in his mouth, no drugs, weapons, or other illegal items were recovered from Robinson or his vehicle. T. 522; 543. No other witness testified to observing a suspected drug transaction. Likewise, while positive for a small amount of marijuana, Robinson's toxicology report was negative for any other illegal narcotic including cocaine, opioids, and barbiturates. T. 822.
AMR arrived but "the call was cancelled by law enforcement." The paramedic applied a bandage to Robinson's head. The other briefs state Robinson only had a small abrasion on his head. Robinson visited his girlfriend at her Highway 80 hotel room. The girlfriend said he "had a bloody bandage on his head" and that a police officer beat him up. Robinson complained of a headache and later began "foaming at the mouth and shaking" as he showed signs of a seizure. AMR was called again.
The paramedics testified their "primary impression" was the deceased suffered a "traumatic brain injury as a result of blunt trauma." They said he scored a "6" on the Glasgow coma scale. (KF: 6?, Hmm...) Robinson died two days later. The brief claims Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Mark LeVaughn, ruled Robinson "suffered from at least three blunt injuries to the head" and the cause of death was ruled to be multiple brain injuries (p.5).
The A.G.'s brief argues the main issue is whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The brief heavily cites Brown v State, 304 So. 3d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) as being directly on point.
Brown was a security guard at a bar when a fight broke out as they often do at such establishments. A patron stuck his nose into the fight and tried to remove one of the belligerents by hauling him out the door. Brown tried to remove the patron from the bar by wrapping his arms around the patron's neck, choking him to the ground, and placing him in handcuffs. The patron "fell unconscious and died of 'complications of hypertensive cardiovascular disease associated with a physical altercation.'"
The patron had superficial injuries of a few small bruises a chin scrape, and some injuries to the lip. A jury convicted Brown of culpable negligence manslaughter . The Court of Appeals held the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction since the defendant could not foresee his actions would cause the deceased to suffer a heart attack. Ms. Farmer said Brown was distinguished from two other cases involving the same crime as the suspect repeatedly beat and inflicted severe trauma on the victim.
The A.G. argued a different set of facts as well:
Just as in Brown, here “there was no evidence of severe trauma or trauma in multiple locations that could constitute gross negligence,” the only injuries to the victim were visibly slight, and there was no “extensive struggle” involving “multiple blows to the victim[ ] resulting in severe blunt-force trauma” that could sustain a culpable- negligence finding. 304 So. 3d at 696. Fox could not “reasonably have foreseen” that Robinson’s death was “likely to happen” from an everyday effort to subdue a resisting, non-compliant suspect using traditional non- lethal means.
Thus the D.A. claims Fox repeatedly assaulted Robinson while the A.G. claims there were no "multiple blows" as Robinson resisted arrest. The D.A. argued the question of whether Fox was "reckless, and negligent" was one for the jury to solve, not the A.G. Owens posited the Brown case was inapplicable to Fox's conviction because the JPD officer subjected Robinson's head to repeated blows of blunt force trauma, directly causing his fatal condition.
Owens accused the Attorney General of hiding facts as well:
Appellee P. 4. However, this contention ignores witness testimony and the medical evidence. Two witnesses testified that Fox slammed Robinson's head into the concrete. One witness testified that Fox then held the victim's head on the concrete wedged against a car tire. T. 388-390. Another witness testified that she witnessed Fox "stomp" Robinson with a booted foot, causing her to take her children inside her house to protect them from the brutality of the assault. T. 468. And while the Attorney General opines that there was no evidence of multiple injury, a requirement for culpable negligence that she is erroneously reading into the statute, this position ignores the fact that, as Dr. LeVaughn testified, Robinson suffered from "at least three blunt injuries." T. 833.
The brief concludes in stating Fox was convicted due to "overwhelming evidence of guilt."
Note: The two briefs are posted below. This case is starting to resemble the battle of the five armies. Are eagles or goblins going to come over the hill?
75 comments:
If he can't defund them throw them in jail.
How’s the goblins?
The AG’s office gave five (5) minutes notice to the DA’s office that it was going to effectively confess error? That reminds me of the treatment the relatives of the victim’s in the Flowers case got by the AG’s office, in that instance, the relatives were informed of the AG’s decision not to proceed with re-trial at almost the moment the AG filed its motion to dismiss the case—and with prejudice at that. The deputy AG who made the decision issued a short statement and then indicated in so many words that that was all she had to say about that. Regardless of the outcome here, this was a hamfisted way of doing things, if the DA was not consulted and only given five (5) minutes notice. Even if the AG’s position turns out to be correct, this is no way to run a rail road. After four years in office, this AG and her staff ought to know better.
It was a skillful decision to file an amicus brief and it will be interesting to see what the Court does, whether it will grant leave to file it. Skillful because it is an attempt to avoid an issue as to which office is representing the State. The DA’s brief makes what appears to be a strong factual argument. And it points out that the courts are not bound by a confession of error.
One does wonder how the facts of the case can be in such dispute between the AG and DA. Ordinarily, what the actual testimony and evidence at trial was is the least controversial thing in an appeal. I mean, it’s all right there, in black and white. Taking the DA’s account of the testimony as being accurate, it leaves me to wonder why the AG didn’t argue them. There is something very odd going on here in the AG’s office, and that’s where the real story is. If the facts are as the DA alleges, the AG should not have confessed this case and should have argued to uphold the conviction. I assume that the decision to confess was approved at least by the criminal division director. But maybe not or maybe the deputy AG involved in the Flowers case made the decision.
Enquiring minds want to know
The reviewing court has to view the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The AG's brief did the opposite. Lynn needs to stop grandstanding and do her job. Trial cost money and time. A jury heard the evidence, made creditably judgments and weighed the evidence. The AG's position is a slap in the face to our system of justice.
at 1:35 PM... No doubt about where you work. Does the County know you're internet blogging on their dime?
Shoot up here amongst us; one of us has gotta have some relief.
@1:35 read the pleadings. Study the law. An AG doesn't take such a direct move without it being justified. Owens is incompetent. He is a puppet playing a part...except for actually trying cases and writing briefs.
If Lynn doesn’t know the AG’s role after 4 years . . . .to be fair, we’ve only been doing this for about 245 years
How lazy that the AG confessed on one issue and did not address the other 4???? Pretty arrogant. Supplemental briefing will be ordered
Appreciate the thought and time that went into the comment @ 1:35.
The full record is available for anyone to read. Both the AG and the DAs facts can be true, and are true. They are cited in the record. What is critical in a sufficiency of the evidence argument, however, is what are the facts IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE STATE. That is how a sufficiency of the evidence argument is to be assessed by the court. That means the DAs facts must reign supreme, and seeing how the DA brief, cited to the record, the courts can easily confirm those facts.
Many lay people clearly do not understand how this all works. The AG has made herself look like a legal fool, in arguing that the facts most favorable to the state were a recitation of the defense facts, bc that said that there was nothing else. No facts to support this at all. Seeing as those facts exist and are literally right there cited in the record! What does the AG have to say for herself? Does she just not know how the law works??? Is she completely ignorant as to criminal law? Sad and embarrassing for our State.
The DA ask the FBI to do an investigation when the FBI found no wrongdoing it okay for the DA office to argue against that
Having not attended the trial, I'll be interested to find out which version of Robinson's injuries is actually supported by the record, as discussed at 1:35.
They can't both be right, and contradictory evidence should have at least been acknowledged by the brief writers, in my opinion. One does not build credibility with the court by simply ignoring evidence to the contrary, and hoping no one reads the transcript.
BTW, I hate to nitpick, but "five (5)" is redundant.
@2:09
I don't know, his brief here sort of made hers look a bit shoddy. And how many cases does that office try a year? 7? 8?
@2:09 you better study the law…bc all you said was an AG doesn’t take steps to do such w/o a good reason. What is that reason? Why does her brief not stand up to muster? Why did she leave out relevant facts. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE?! This is embarrassing for the AG. I honestly feel bad for Fox, bc the people helping him are abject fools. If the AG wanted to help she should have made arguments supported by the ACTUAL record. If the record doesn’t support her arguement, what is she doing? If I was fox I’d try to find the actual smartest lawyers I could find, bc this shit is embarrassing. If anyone from Fox people are reading here, you need to go find someone of actual intelligence to represent this man…bc those around him must want him to stay convicted smh.
So regardless of who investigated what, a jury unanimously convicted after a fair trial. FBI did not have the autopsy
2:20/2:36: I think the question is whether the case should have even been submitted to the jury, and if so, whether the court should have granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. You ought to know that a jury's verdict is not sacrosanct, or there would be no such thing as a jnov.
I think the legal issue is whether Robinson's death was a reasonably-foreseeable result of Fox's actions, as set forth in Brown v. State. The AG says there was no way for Fox to know Robinson was on anticoagulants. The DA says the "beating" alone was sufficient to kill him. We'll have to wait and see what the appellate courts have to say about it.
"The DA ask the FBI to do an investigation when the FBI found no wrongdoing it okay for the DA office to argue against that"
Next time try it in English......
Lynn basically said “I can’t make a valid legal argument sustaining this verdict.” But then, someone made a valid legal argument defending the verdict and citing relevant authority. Hmmm
Hinds county "justice" charade is mad as fuck.
@3:15
Brown v. state did not create a new rule. COA is an error correction court.
I think AG Lynn should have just filed a brief that asked the Court of Appeals why are we prosecuting Fox when Hinds County will not prosecute criminals freely running the streets that have done far worse.
2:05. Don’t work for the county or anybody. Am retired. But I am intrigued by this train wreck. My guess is that the court is going to have oral argument in this case now. If the DA is permitted to argue, oh what a fun thing that argument will be to watch. I would think that the AG will now file a brief opposing the DA’s filing. I wonder if the AG will take issue with the DA’s assertion of facts. My, my, my. And all so unnecessary. I still say that the real story here is what was going through the minds of the AG’s staff. I very much doubt that Lynn Fitch, her own personal self, knew anything about this, and maybe still doesn’t. She wouldn’t understand the problem anyway, unless somebody takes the time to break it down for her
3:15
Yeah that is going to be pretty embarrassing for old Lynn. Confessing sufficiency. The state has confessed error less than 100 times in the last 206 years. Granted, several of those were during Lynn's tenure. But never on sufficiency.
All of this is nonsense. Everyone knows that Owens has a personal beef with Fox for feeding the cipher all of that information. On the other hand, this is political for Fitch as well. Trying to support the republican mantra of “backing the blue” when she nor her her incompetent team really give a damn about Fox.
Say what you will about Hood, but he brought money into the state and went after cases that directly affected the citizens of Mississippi. Fitch is just spending a bunch of money on foolishness, which is exactly what she did as treasurer.
Well reasoned, if I do say so myself.
The DA conducted a malicious prosecution and now he is trying to cover that up. The record is clear. The judge was biased. The jury got it wrong.
Jody owens himself stated after speaking with the witnesses that they were not creditable
but then still put the same witnesses on stand to testify isn't that against the law??????
Every medical expert including the states expert said it was impossible for a beaten or slammed allegation to have been true
2:05. Don’t work for the county or anybody. Am retired. But I am intrigued by this train wreck. My guess is that the court is going to have oral argument in this case now. If the DA is permitted to argue, oh what a fun thing that argument will be to watch. I would think that the AG will now file a brief opposing the DA’s filing. I wonder if the AG will take issue with the DA’s assertion of facts. My, my, my. And all so unnecessary. I still say that the real story here is what was going through the minds of the AG’s staff. I very much doubt that Lynn Fitch, her own personal self, knew anything about this, and maybe still doesn’t. She wouldn’t understand the problem anyway, unless somebody takes the time to break it down for her
In case anyone is not caught up, Judge Carlton Reeves dismissed the civil rights violation accusations against all three officers, including Fox, over this same incident. This is the same Judge Reeves who detests qualified immunity for police officers and has written so many times. However, he is honest and ethical and will rule it when it is there. The burden of proof for a federal civil rights violation is much lower than for murder or manslaughter. Any of Jody's people want to take a shot at Judge Reeves?
And Judge Peterson heard all of the evidence. She dismissed the other two officers because there was absolutely no evidence they broke the law. That was indicted and prosecuted by the same DA, who people now say is so much smarter than the AG. I don't care for the AG, but her assistant that wrote the brief is a legal genius. Try finding one of those in the Hinds Co. DA's office. Good luck.
DA#1 OR DA#2: Wonder which one is trying to throw muck to see what sticks...
2:31 - no need to address the other four issues when the first is determinative. Nothing at all unusual about that - even thought the faulty Jury Instructions would certainly result in a remand. Wooten did not approach following the law in her denial of certain instruction and allowing another.
The 'five minute' argument made by Owens' stooge above doesn't hold water either. What difference would it have made (not to quote Hillary, but figure that might make it understandable to 1:35) if the AG had given a day. Or how much advance notice do you think should have been given?
If Owens wanted to file an amicus, he could have done this at any time during the months that this has been pending in the COA; but he didn't bother until his scam got exposed.
And KF, not sure your opening holds water yet; at this point Owens can only ASK to intervene and to file an amicus. My bet is that the COA will note that the time has passed and not allow it. But Jody will get his basking in the sun and tell Chockwe he tried so the kush can't get to pissed.
@231
Time has passed? Read the rule.
MRAP 29 gives amici 7 days to file in response to a brief. Appellee filed July 10. Rule 29 motion filed July 17 …
No, 3:28, Lynn made a valid argument and it was based on precedent. The charge required that Fox et.al. would have known of his (supposed) medical issues and that normal actions taken by a LEO in apprehending someone who is resisting could not meet the culpuble standard.
Put in front of a judge with normal capacity and integrity would have resulted in either a dismissal (assuming it made it through the DA ham sandwich process of the grand jury) this would have been dismissed; at worst, with a JNOV.
Owens, and all his employees commenting here saying that a jury verdict is sacred ignores the entire point of a JNOV as well as an appeal. But then again, why should we expect differently.
As an aside, wonder if this were to be remanded if Jody would figure out some equal charge that he could use so that Fox wouldn't be disenfranchised? Wondering minds want to know, but actually we know that his theory announced a couple of weeks ago wouldn't be applied to Fox.
The end game for Hinds County, and specifically Jackson, is total lawlessness. Congrats, you're almost there.
"Brown v. state did not create a new rule. COA is an error correction court."
That's what they said when the Court of Appeals was created about 25 years ago.
But unless and until the Supreme Court steps in and says something different, Brown v. State is the law of the land.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court should keep these types of cases and either endorse or overrule the prior decision of the Court of Appeals. I guess they're too busy dealing with all of the politically-motivated bullcrap cases (Chockwe A. Lumumba being the #! offender for the last few years).
Jody is really fighting hard to try to keep the truth of that sham trial from coming out. Too bad he didn’t fight nearly as hard for caveman with the Greta Bully case as he is this one. Oh… Lumumba didn’t tell him to go after Greta and surprise surprise, there’s always Dennis in the shadows!!! No wonder Hinds County is a mess!!!
@5:35 but manslaughter isn’t a disenfranchising crime…smh and you people know the law
@6:17 if it’s a sham trial go get the record and prove it. The record speaks for itself. Also why do peopel keep bringing up greta bully that was an open plea in front of a non hinds county judge bc they all recused. Blame the Supreme Court for their appointment!
@5:59–brown doesn’t set any new precedent. Read the actual brief. The issues are different. In brown the person didn’t even die of the altercation…they basically had a heart attack…then the court basically said well you couldn’t have foreseen this person would have had a heart attack since you didn’t rough um up that much. In fox, multiple people said that he slammed his head on the pavement…and he he died from having his head slammed on the pavement…why is that so hard to comprehend? Now whether or not those witnesses are credible?? I don’t know! But the jury got to judge the credibility of every witness. And they were allowed to completely discount any testimony they thought was not credible…has if ever occurred to anyone that idk the jury just didn’t believe the fox team.
#justice4caseyfarmer poor girl/guy/ just doing their job and had to let Lynn embarrass her. As trump would say SAD.
Jody Owens sent his puppet Joe Hemleben to relay false information to the court of appeals. They both should be reported to the MS BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE Ethics COMMITTEE. He listed several statements that were inaccurate, NOT EVEN in THE RECORD. Just flat out lies. The lengths they are going to keep an innocent man in prison is going to back FIRE. If you look on Jody latest photographs he looks like a man that knows he has several seal indictments waiting on him. Jody, mayor, Dennis, Guthrie, ago, Spencer, Wooten, sanders, they all conspired a false case. I can only imagine the pain and suffering they have cause all three officers n they families.
They should pay them big time and have some type of consequences for they actions now that’s law
If Jody didn't fight for the conviction he sought and secured, and along with the AG's confession of error, if it is overturned on the grounds pleaded (the whole "sufficiency v. weight" debate of last week) his already-low apparent chances in what I presume are several already-drafted civil complaints sure don't get any better. If it is reversed and rendered he's likely fucked regardless, with the "depth of penetration" being the only issue in dispute. But if he directly or implicitly were to confess error, all sorts of potential problems are a certainty. From what I've seen, which is by no means everything, he has earned at least a suspension, if not a disbarment (not that he'd actually get either), so "Hail Marys" are his only option.
4:05 - I'll take that bet (that the COA will now have oral arguments) and I'll double it down, saying that the COA won't allow the amicus to be filed 'late', much less allow him to intervene and argue.
@3:55, I'm not a fan of Fitch, but I almost chocked on the other side of your comments - that "Hood brought money into the state". Granted, if you count his bringing money into the pockets of his particular trial lawyer buddies as coming into the state, I will accept your premise; but saying that he was doing anything to benefit the state is as ridiculous as saying that Lynn Fitch has any business being AG. Or in any elected position for that matter. But it does show that hard work and late hours put in early on in her career when she worked for the W&M Committee at the house paid off in the long run. Not the model I want my daughters to follow but she has proven that done right it can be beneficial.
633, yes a couple of people said that he 'slammed his head' - but none of the three medical experts agreed that his head could have been 'slammed' and he not have any more serious injuries than he did.
Saying Brown didn't die from the altercation fits exactly here - there is no medical evidence that Robinson died from the altercation. (Maybe he died from injesting the drugs he was fighting to get into his mouth - much more of a possibility than any supposed altercation and "slamming")
And as Jody acknowleded himself earlier, his witnesses were not credible. Yes, he did still present them because it was all he had and he was told to get a conviction.
Judge Reeves? Judge Peterson? Can't find any guilt here, but somehow the bright mind Wooten could f**k up the jury instructions enough to get the culpuble case through her courtroom.
@6:33- It was a sham and a shame. The record is out there and it will be.
I actually blame people like you!!!
Greta Bully keeps being brought up because it shows the depths this DA ,his office and “friends” will go to get what they want. Right or Wrong.
Depending on who you are determines the “Justice” you get.
And as far as I’m concerned the jury had “help” with their decision.
“Casey, the general is going in a different direction”
6:33, I was responding to the comment at 3:47, which seems to say that the Court of Appeals is incapable of setting precedent.
I stand by my original statement at 3:15 that "the legal issue is whether Robinson's death was a reasonably-foreseeable result of Fox's actions, as set forth in Brown v. State." Irrespective of whether Brown plowed new ground, "reasonably-foreseeable" is the standard.
I'm not going to read a record on appeal that I haven't been hired to read, so I'll wait about 9-10 months for the opinion from the Court of Appeals to find out what really happened. They're pretty good at sorting that stuff out.
5:59/3:15
6:47. If you are claiming that Mr Hemleben made statements of fact that are not supported by the record, then you also are saying that he is a fool or incompetent. Appeals are heard "on the record" only. Statements of fact that have no foundation in the record or are contradicted by the record reflect badly on the attorney making them. So consequently no good attorney would try to argue facts that have no record support. Facts in the record that are in conflict are a different matter. I know Mr Hemleben and I would be very surprised if he did such a thing. He has handled criminal appellate work in the past.
One thing that may be getting lost here is that the question is not whether the accused was guilty. The question is, and only is, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to permit a jury to determine guilt or not. Hemleben's brief takes the position that there was such evidence, even if it was in dispute. Juries exist just for the purpose of deciding what testimony is the more credible. A jury's decision on conflicting evidence is given great deference on appeal, and if the appellate courts think the jury reached an unjust result on evidence that was sufficient to permit it to make a decision, then the court will order a new trial on the basis of "the overwhelming weight of the evidence". In this case, the AG has taken the position that the evidence was not sufficient to permit the jury to even decide the case.
WOW, a District Attorney's Office really struck a nerve with the "Criminal Litigation Division." Maybe yall should tone down those case updates and consider your audience. Real prosecutors might take you more seriously.
Have any of you read judge reeves opinion? It’s about qualified immunity, not criminal liability. He actually says he wished he could hold Fox accountable
8:10 is that you Theresa??? The literal cause of death was blunt force trauma. Every expert testified to that. Every expert also testified that there was no way to know how much force was used. Literally no medical examiners report anywhere ks going to say cause of death is taking pills while on the ground. Are you stupid or are you dumb? Do you understand the legal standard or not? That standard is the light most favorable to the state and counting all evidence favoring the defense as untrue! Even the AG says that’s the standard so if you are to do thar the light most favorable to the state is accepting as true the two witnesses testimony that says his head was slammed into the ground! And the actual cause of death as blunt force trauma…which is a medical term not whatever the hell you said. But nice try. Discount are you stupid are are you dumb. You are both.
I wish someone would look into Greta Bully. Bc if they did what they would find is every hinds county elected judge recused themselves from the case. The chief Justice then had to appoint a judge. And he picked an older white senior status Judge from outside of the county. Then greta threw herself on the mercy of the court. No plea offers or anything. Then the judge decided her sentence in his own. Y’all love conspiracy theories that don’t make sense…is wild and truly embarrassing…but by all means…continue
@6;47 The fact you or anyone in this thread would actually believe any of these lawyers would risk their literal bar license, over Fox should tell us all we need to know. The people on this thread are delusional. Most people, just like you have lives, interests, hopes, and struggles outside of work. They clearly don’t care. They just do their job to the best of their ability and go home. If the jury found him not guilty? Fine. Found guilty? Also fine. The jury decides and it is what it is. It’s okay to not agree but making veiled threats at any lawyer on any side while referencing unfounded conspiracy theories…is not just delusional but ignorant as hell.
@6:47
Joe Hemleben is nobody’s puppet. Ask Stacy Pickering
Y’all talk about judge Wooten like a dog…but I don’t think she has been reversed yet. Not even once since coming on the bench…so ummmmmmmm someone please explain that? She’s so wrong and so bad and does everything wrong….but hasn’t been reversed. Make it make sense? If you know of a case where she has been reversed, please educate me. We’d all like to know…
9:42. I think the AG struck a nerve with the DA since--apparently--the AG didn't see fit to discuss the case with the DA prior to taking its position in court. Seems to me that that right there is where most of this problem lies. The reality is that the AG's criminal division is almost entirely staffed by young lawyers straight out of law school or clerkships. The division head was herself straight out of a clerkship, having never tried a case, argued a case, or even having some background in criminal law. They apparently haven't understood that they are advocates, not law students or law clerks who are not supposed to be taking positions for one side or another in a case. They also appear to be oblivious to the consequences of blindsiding DAs. This is what can happen when you have young lawyers who do not have more experienced lawyers train them. But Lynn Fitch showed almost all of the lawyers who had that experience, often decades of experience, the door.
In the context of this case, it does not indicate "guilty as charged" nor even provide evidentiary support for the conviction merely that Fox's actions happened to be the proximate cause or even a contributing factor to Robinson's death. The question for "guilty as charged" is whether Fox was wantonly negligent in his conduct, indicating an indifference to Robinson's life, and as a direct result of Fox's want of care as to Robinson's life, Robinson died. In simple terms, it would need to be proven that Fox knew damned good and well that doing what he did could (not even would) kill Robinson and Fox said to himself, "Fuck it, I don't care."
If Fox acted within the spectrum of reasonable conduct for an LEO under the circumstances, he is not and could not be "negligent," much less wantonly or willfully so. If Fox acted outside that spectrum, the question becomes whether he did it with wanton disregard to Robinson's life ("fuck it, I don't care"). Proving that Fox didn't care if Robinson got "beat up" and would be in pain for days or even weeks doesn't get there. Fox would have had to acted in wanton disregard to Robinson's very life.
Fox called the EMTs. That alone strongly suggests that Fox had at least some consideration for Robinson's physical well-being. Even alleging that he did it only as CYA tends to support the argument that his mindset was not such that he had scienter of wanton disregard/negligence. Further, the physical evidence of the exam by the EMTs did not produce in them a sense that Robinson needed immediate life-saving medical care. Even if it were now alleged that the EMTs were simply covering for Fox and knew Robinson needed such care, that puts the wanton negligence on the EMTs, who were the "experts," and is not assignable back to Fox as the (medical) "lay person."
As to evidence, a court cannot allow anyone who wants to testify to anything do so. If one or 100 witnesses wanted to testify that they witnessed Fox shoot Robinson 10 times with an 11-gauge AR-47 shotpistol, that would and should not be allowed. Even if those witnesses truly believed they did see it, it is absolutely contradicted by the physical evidence and not supported by any evidence. Here, witnesses who are reasonably classed as "not wholly unbiased" testified that they saw Fox "slam" Robinson to a paved surface. Define "slammed." Did Fox take Robinson to the ground? Apparently so. But again, whether it was a legally-permissible "take down" or excessive force, if Fox did not do it with disregard for Robinson's very life, Fox is factually not guilty as charged.
In simple terms, picture a situation in which a pissed-off cop encounters a mouthy 20 year old kid who resists arrest. The cop forcefully takes the kid to the ground and even admits he was rougher than necessary on the kid. That still does not get to "wanton indifference" to the kid's very life even if the cop freely admits he was "wantonly indifferent" to the kid's aches, pains, or even pearly-white smile. The question to be put to a jury is not "did Fox use excessive force?" it is "was Fox wantonly indifferent to Robinson's life," and there seems to be no substantive evidence of that very specific charge for a "gatekeeper" - Judge Wooten - to allow to the finder of fact - the jury - to hear and place upon its scale.
Owens and Wooten apparently screwed the pooch and went back for sloppy seconds and now, Owens is apparently trying to swing for the fences with the only equipment he has in his dugout: a Whiffle bat and a cotton ball. If he somehow manages to put it out of the park, it will be more Arnold Rothstein-esque than Shoeless Joe's swing.
"Y’all talk about judge Wooten like a dog…but I don’t think she has been reversed yet."
A VERY basic, quick, and cursory 15-second search on WL produces not only reversals, but rev-and-renders. Eh, Lynn and a cabal of white boys probably hired some Russian hackers or something and those aren't real opinions. I'll leave the one-minute search to the more-interested as CLE (that won't count for jack-shit CLE-wise but might help greatly in attempting to practice law).
@ 8:00 - I don't know what a W&M Committee is, but I do know every job she had prior to Treasurer was a political 'gimmee' job sponsored by a governor.
All she did while in those political appointments was rack up comp time and PERS credits, which is all she is doing today.
I'm no Taggart fan, but if not for the Red Skirt Brigade, he'd be the (deserved) A.G. today.
Everyone up in arms over the AG's concession, either don't know or forgot that this exact case, this exact set of facts were trotted out in the other two officer's case. That resulted in a Directed Verdict. Judge Peterson correctly laid out the standard in Brown, applied it, and mercy ruled the DA's office. That should have been the outcome here. Why the Hinds DA indicted all three in seperate indictments made no sense, but that has been the M.O. for this office for years, long before Jody. And no, the first two weren't indicted together and Fox alone separately. Three different indictments. Two were assigned to Judge Peterson, who consolidated them. The defense tried to consolidate Fox's case with the other two, but was denied.
Continuing the challenge at 10:40 pm "If you know of a case where she has been reversed, please educate me."
reversed and remanded: Alpha Mgmt. Corp. v. Harris, 2023 Miss. LEXIS 148 (Miss. June 1, 2023)
reversed is part and remanded: Lawson v. City of Jackson, 349 So. 3d 724, (Miss. Oct. 20, 2022)
reversed and rendered: Cath. Diocese of Jackson v. de Lange, 341 So. 3d 887 (Miss. June 16, 2022)
reversed and rendered in part: City of Jackson v. Johnson, 343 So. 3d 356 (Miss. April 28, 2022)
reversed and rendered: Woodard v. Miller, 326 So. 3d 439 (Miss. 2021)
. . .
@12:03
Yeah I don't see any v. State. We are discussing criminal matters are we not.
Send more emails. File your little motion. Can't wait to see Wooten eat yall alive.
@11:49. Chokwe was out to get Fox, and used Jody and his office as the vessel. We know they're in cahoots with Wooten, so she manipulated the trial to go in the DA's favor.
@12:34. Since you think Wooten is such a stellar judge, go back and look at some of her other cases. The one that immediately comes to mind is T’Quarius Jones. Also, if you want to do a little more digging, go check out her prestigious record as a lawmaker. I'm not sure she ever presented a successful bill, besides renaming a street or building.
Thank god we have an Attorney General willing to step into a legal battle and take on Hinds County. Lynn please keep fighting the fight and know many law abiding Mississippians support you.
Judge Wooten has not been criminally reversed. That’s the truth. You cannot find a criminal case where she has been reversed. Literally try and find it….I’ll wait
@2:12
Yes, Thank you Lynn for showing Hinds a BETTER WAY TO LET DEFEDNANTS GO FREE. I hope she takes this new found skill of incompetency to other counties and frees their convicts as well. Thank you RINO Lynn
Am I the only one who thinks that this will get tossed on appeal due to the issues with jury instruction? The jury was told, if my memory serves me correctly - not to find the defendant either guilty of one of the two BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT or not guilty BUT instead to find him guilty of either 2nd degree murder or negligent culpable manslaughter. As I said, I may be incorrect in my exact remembering, but I know there was something along these lines discussed.
@4:45. Exactly! I'm also wondering why there hasn't been a judicial review? I guess that would be too much to ask in Hinds County.
4:45
One would think the AG would have confessed that instead of sufficiency and not look like a bonehead
12:43/2:16: The original challenge at 10:40 was:
"I don’t think she has been reversed yet. Not even once since coming on the bench . . . If you know of a case where she has been reversed, please educate me."
So now Wooten is only incompetent in CIVIL matters. Got it.
@5:48
According to Westlaw analytics, Wooten has a 100% affirmance rate. Lynn’s rating as a trial attorney is not not found.
Westlaw? Lynn probably has them on FASTCASE.
6:41. You ought not be surprised. Your attorney general has not even been in a justice or a city court to represent one party or another to a charge of speeding. She has never actually practiced law. But she shore does look good.
6:41, see the comment at 12:03. Feel free to check the citations.
-12:03
Post a Comment