The courtroom drama continued in the Carly Gregg case as the defense's sneak attack on the prosecution backfired bigly yesterday in Rankin County Circuit Court.
The Battle of the Experts was concluding yesterday when Gregg's attorney, Bridget Todd, asked the Court to dismiss the case as she accused Assistant District Attorney Kathryn Newman of committing a Brady violation. Todd charged her counterpart did not turn over exculpatory text messages between Carly Gregg and a friend that would require the Court to dismiss the case. The Brady rule requires the prosecution to provide all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal trial. A Brady violation is a serious charge as it usually means instant termination for wayward prosecutors.
Once Todd moved to dismiss, the real fun began as seen in the video below. Consider it to be lawyer porn for our barred readers.
Circuit Judge Dewey Arthur excused the jury as the matter weighed heavily on his brow. Newman sternly stood at the podium, defending herself against the surprise attack. The prosecutor said the text messages were not exculpatory and were provided to the defense on June 4. "It is not the state's fault they did not review those messages," said Newman. However, Newman was not through as she had grown wise to the defense's tactics over time.
"Since there had been issues with the state of Mississippi and defense attorneys claiming they had not received items, the state had them sign something saying they had received discovery," reported Newman.
"Your honor, they had this material, they knew the material existed, for them to try to claim now they were not provided is disengenious," argued the Rankin County prosecutor.
Judge Arthur asked Newman to prove she turned over the jump drive containing the text messages in question. Newman provided a copy of a document showing receipt of the digital discovery with Todd's signature. You read that correctly. Bridget Todd, Esq. accused the prosecution of not providing discovery but the prosecution literally brought receipts. Case closed.
Todd responded to Newman's claims, stating the prosecution provided an external hard drive and not a jump drive on June 4. Showing her laptop to Judge Arthur, Todd said she could not find the file in the discovery provided. The judge allowed Newman and fellow Assistant District Attorney Smith to find it on Todd's computer and find it they did. Somehow everyone managed to keep a straight face.
"Did you find it, Miss Todd?" asked the judge. "Yes, your honor," replied Todd. "So you in fact, received it?" asked Judge Arthur. "Yes, your honor," answered the attorney as Judge Arthur was visibly perturbed but he held his fire.
Judge Arthur discussed the holding of Brady v. Maryland. The first prong of the case's was whether the evidence in question was exculpatory. The judge said the text messages were not exculpatory but instead could impeach Gregg's friend. The text messages discussed Gregg using drugs back in November 2023 instead of January 2024 as the defense claimed in court. The second prong was whether the defendant had the evidence. The Court ruled Gregg's lawyers did indeed have the text messages. Thus no Brady violation took place.
In what can only be described a moment of humiliation for the defense, Judge Arthur said "if I'm being frank, this reads like she has a crush on some boy named ****** and there's a whole bunch of talk of taking drugs and sleeping pills." Little more was said.
Motion denied.
Kingfish note: Judge Arthur should sanction the defense. Gregg's lawyers have ignored deadlines, failed to comply with discovery orders, and now falsely accused a prosecutor of a Brady violation as they tried to get her fired in the middle of trial. It is quite clear the Court's patience is wearing thin. However, the Court can expect more shenanigans unless there are consequences for this whatever it is called practice of law.
Don't take my word for it. Just watch the video.
22 comments:
Get 'em Kat! Proud to call you a friend!
Probably should be a mistrial, sanctions for the defense (including going back to law school), and new defense lawyers for the next trial. Miss Gregg certainly has the makings for an appeal for incompetent representation.
I guess you get what you pay for in Defense attorneys, just like in chicken meat.
Ouch
Ooops. You really hate to have it happen to you.
Dang...my worst fear as an attorney
Incompetency on display!
This Bridget Todd person strikes me as the kind of person who consistently stumbles over her own words and lacks the basic intellect that would prevent her from breathing through her ears.
But defense counsel will "pull the fat out of the fire " with a captivating closing argument.
Todd's law firm's name has been changed to...wait for it... The Brady Bunch.
It certainly appears Ms Todd’s looks have gotten her much farther in life than her brains. Its bad for a lawyer to get embarrassed in a local court, I’m not sure how to describe having it happen on live TV.
Ditto! @8:12
Kat is a badass, and she is putting it on display this week!
The horrendous facts of this case should not overshadow the defendants 6th amendment rights. By definition, the first prong of Strickland is certainly met. However, showing the outcome would be different is a tall hurdle; and, therein lies the problem. The defendant deserves better than this is many ways that ultimately led to a more appropriate strategy and disposition.
One thing seems clear, and that is that the judge is making a real effort to make a clear and complete record of his rulings, which is important should there be a conviction and an appeal. He seems to be aware that there is the possibility of a sympathy reaction from some of the appellate judges due to the age of the defendant, and he may remember the fate of the Tyler Edmonds case some years ago. The judge seems to be astute. All too often lawyers and trial judges forget that when they are trying a case they are also in a sense presenting the case on appeal. So, making a complete and accurate record of motions, objections, rulings, as well as testimony, is essential. If it ain’t in the record, it didn’t happen. Appellate courts don’t (or shouldn’t) consider any fact argued on appeal that isn’t supported by the record, and shouldn’t entertain arguments law weren’t preserved by the record.
9:28am: Looks? Get out more.
Since this is more about the lawyers involved than the underlying litigation, I'd suggest it is yet another of the near-daily proofs that Mississippi has no shortage of lawyers unfit to practice in any area of the law civil or criminal, be elected to the judiciary or any branch of government, or who fail to embarrass themselves and the legal profession at every opportunity.
Under the "English rule" used in the UK and many other ("first-world" "Western") countries, the losing party pays for their own costs and the winner's legal costs. I wonder what would happen if the US went to a system in which the losing lawyer had to refund the client's fees and costs, if any were paid by the client, and pay the winner's costs. Oh, I know what many US lawyers claim would happen, but the evidence strongly suggests that they once again do not know much about which they speak.
Damn!
It looks to me like Kevin Camp sent his co-counsel, whose main practice area appears to be family law, out on a limb.
I suspect that Ms. Todd was laying a basis for an appeal based on incompetent representation. I think that the judge saw that coming. I hope the verdict stands on appeal.
Sorry 111, occurred outside the presence of the jury; her incompetence didn't affect the outcome - ergo, no overturning on appeal. Just as all the other screwups, delays, failures, etc by the defense team; all happened outside the presence of the jury and had no affect on the outcome. Judge Arthur saw to that in his rulings (and refusal to take the bait and disallow evidence due to their screwups (unlike Carley, in her text messages, I won't us the 'f' word here to describe the team's actions.)
Good attorneys know when to hold em and when to fold em. Good attorneys know how to keep from looking bad and still lay it on the line. Todd has been doing this long enough regardless of her area of expertise to perform better than that. She's probably a good attorney in her element.
I didn't get it
Yes you did, you signed for it
But I can't get it on my computer
Yes you can, matter of fact, here it is.
Wow. This judge deserves an award for not literally slapping defense atty.
Post a Comment