Circuit Judge Debra Gibbs holds first trial.
Hinds County District Attorney Jody Owens issued the following statement.
Hinds County District Attorney Jody E. Owens, II, announces the guilty verdict convicting Jameel Smith of two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. The two-day jury trial was held before the Honorable Debra Gibbs in the Circuit Court of Hinds County.
The charges in this case arose from two separate interactions with the Clinton Police Department. On October 22, 2022, Smith was operating a vehicle in Clinton when Clinton Police conducted a traffic stop. During the course of the traffic stop, officers conducted a lawful search of Smith’s vehicle and recovered a firearm and narcotics. Smith, who was previously convicted of felony evasion in Madison County, was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. On December 26, 2022, Clinton Police responded to a residence in reference to a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, officers contacted Smith, who, again, had a firearm in his possession.
Pursuant to Mississippi law, Smith faces a term of up to ten (10) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections on each count, for a total of twenty (20) years. Each count also carries a possible $5,000 fine. Smith is scheduled to be sentenced early next month.
“The facts of this case show an individual who has no regard for the law.” DA Owens said following the verdict. “Thankfully, law enforcement was able to deescalate the domestic situation before it ended violence.”
9 comments:
Now if Jackson can arrest and notify the Feds when teenaged thugs are openly brandishing illegal machine guns.
Obviously, it boils down to no regard for the law and the expectation that prison will be a walk in the park, with home-boys, while 'advancing in rank' in various prison 'clubs'.
I'm told that gang-life in prison is easier than gang-life on the streets. And the green beans are warmer than grandma's.
5:22 - Jackson won't and doesn't need to notify the Feds. The Feds will see the video.
Rest assured the recent (June 2022) Supreme Court decision (New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn, Inc vs. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police) will allow this to be overturned, as other similar cases have been. Note the case of United State vs Rahimi where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (our brain trust in Lousiana) upheld that a Federal law barring persons with domestic violence orders from possessing firearms was a violation of the Second Amendment. Halllelujia. I think that call is back with the Supremes this go-around.
It being her first trial, I’m certain she is guilty of reversible error.
5:54 PM - Incorrect. There is a very long and established history in the U.S. at both the federal and state levels of violent, convicted felons being stripped of their second amendment rights. This is easy to establish at trial by competent prosecutors.
It is obvious that certain lawyers and judges of a particular political bent are throwing a temper tantrum and refusing to faithfully apply by the well reasoned Bruen decision.
In that 5th circuit appeal, you can blame the politicians who thought a politically motivated brand new penalty which stripped 2nd amendment rights from the people. They are real geniuses, aren't they? They keep bragging that they are smarter than everyone else, but I ain't seeing it. Where does the due process for folks with a DV conviction, say 30 years ago, but had no notice they lost a constitutional right, come into the picture?
@4;00am,
Indeed there is a long and established history of federal and state levels of violent, convicted felons being stripped of their second amendment rights; you are correct.
But these restrictions did not extend back to the time when the 2nd Amendment was conceived.
In June of this year, in the United States District Court - Southern District of Mississippi, a charge of felon-in-possession was dismissed against a convicted felon who kept a gun in his home for personal safety. The federal judge stated:
“The federal felon‐in‐possession ban was enacted in 1938, not 1791 or 1868—the years the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. The government’s brief in this case does not identify a “well‐established and representative historical analogue” from either era supporting the categorical disarmament of tens of millions of Americans who seek to keep firearms in their home for self‐defense.”
Certainly every case is different. And Jameel Smith’s case may warrant his incarceration for multiple reasons, but the charge of felon in possession of a gun is not likely gonna stick.
@6:54 maybe new judges should never have trials then?
The felon is barred by law not just from possession of the weapon but even being in proximity to one. So the felon is there, the weapon is there, how difficult can it be to preside over that virtually certain conviction? It's a lay-up for a green judge.
Post a Comment