Jackson Free Press

WLBT-TV3 is reporting that the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned James Ford Seale's 2007 conviction for his involvement in the murders of Charles Moore and Henry Dee. He was sentenced to three life terms last August, and today the Court rendered a decision of acquittal. See the full story here. Look for updates on jacksonfreepress.com.

The Jackson Free Press revealed in 2005 that Seale was still alive after a reporting trip to Franklin County with Charles Moore's brother, Thomas. For background, read the JFP's archive of award-winning coverage of the investigation and the trial here.

View the Fifth Circuit's 20-page opinion here: U.S. v. Seale (PDF, 80 KB).

Previous Comments

ID

135520

Comment

This is just such a sad setback on the road to justice. I can't imagine what the Dee and Moore familiesare going through--to taste justice so bitterly, only to see it ripped away.

Author

maggie

Date

2008-09-09T19:42:03-06:00

ID

135521

Comment

All I can say from my undisclosed location is: "bah humbug." Actually, I'm saying other things, but I'm refraining from posting. I've been worried about the appeal and the statute of limitations on that kidnapping charge, which was tricky from the beginning. That doesn't mean I *agree* with it, but it does give the Fifth Circuit a chance to go old Mississippi on us. So to speak.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-09T20:06:18-06:00

ID

135522

Comment

I just saw the headline on WAPT. I wonder how this will affect the other cold cases. This is going to make Mississippi look really, really bad. I want to know the presidential candidates' opinion on this and how they feel about civil rights cold cases in general. Justice delayed, justice denied.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-09T20:07:29-06:00

ID

135523

Comment

Well, it should make the Fifth Circuit, and the politicians who appointed those judges, look really, really bad. Mississippi jurors convicted him, bless their hearts. From a quick glance, I see they bought Kathy Nester's argument that his Klan affiliation shouldn't have been brought in. How do you talk about this case, and this kidnapping, without talking about him being in the friggin' Klan. It was a *Klan* action. It's almost too much to bear.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-09T20:10:56-06:00

ID

135524

Comment

CNN is indeed reporting that the acquittal is due to that nagging problem with the statute of limitations on the kidnapping charge. Folks, this has worried me throughout, frankly. Our laws just aren't set up to deal with these old cases in a way that leads to justice. This should be a call to action to candidates for federal office to do something to put teeth into cold-case laws and legislation. Mississippi, for God's sake, convicted the guy, after it wouldn't years ago when it could based on an extensive investigation by the FBI then. How mucked up is this? Also, note that CNN declares Charles Edwards dead. That is news to me: Seale was 71 when convicted. In his appeal, he claimed he should never have been prosecuted because a 1972 amendment to federal kidnapping laws established a five-year statute of limitations. The appeals court agreed, overturning Seale's conviction and acquitting him. Seale was arrested in 1964 along with Charles Edwards, who has since died, but the two were released on bail and never tried.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-09T20:25:35-06:00

ID

135526

Comment

Great job Kathy Nester! Someone who understands that the right to due process and a fair trial is guaranteed to EVERYONE under our Constitution.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-09T21:18:17-06:00

ID

135527

Comment

(1 of 2) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit based their decision on U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate's ruling on Feb. 22, 2007, which denied James Ford Seale's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute of limitations for kidnapping had expired. Here's the JFP article from that day: Citing U.S. v. Jackson, a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that downgraded kidnapping from a capital offense, federal public defender Dennis Joiner argued that charges stemming from the 1964 murders would have exceeded their statute of limitations in 1969. Special Litigation Counsel Paige Fitzgerald, arguing for the prosecution, said that the 1968 ruling did not apply retroactively, and that in 1964 kidnapping was a capital offense unbound by statutes of limitation. “Some crimes are so serious that the defendant should always be punished when caught,” Fitzgerald said. Wingate, who told Joiner that the majority of his case history was made “by extrapolation,” noted that kidnapping “typically is recognized as a capital offense” by states. Wingate also determined that the 1972 ruling in Furman v. Georgia, which determined that certain death sentences were “cruel and unusual,” is “non-consequential, because the (death sentence) repeal was not made retroactively.” In its ruling to overturn Seale's conviction, the Fifth Circuit refers to Wingate's oral ruling that day: The district court below, in an oral ruling that focused almost entirely on the effect of Jackson, concluded that kidnapping remained a capital crime with no limitations period. The court made scant reference to the 1972 amendment, stating only that it “was not made retroactive.” As discussed below, we conclude that the district court erred in finding that the 1972 amendment’s effect on the statute of limitations was not retroactive. Congress passed an amendment to the kidnapping law in 1972, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Furman v. Georgia. The Fifth Circuit argues that, even though "absent a clear statement from Congress that an amendment should apply retroactively, we presume it applies only prospectively to future conduct," the kidnapping amendment applies retroactively because a) it was, in the Fifth Circuit's opinion, a procedural, not substantive, amendment, and b) in the Fifth Circuit's opinion, "we may infer that Congress intended its amendment to (the kidnapping law) to change the applicable limitations period." In other words, Congress did not specify that the 1972 amendment would apply retroactively, or affect the statute of limitations for pre-1972 cases, but the Fifth Circuit here is granting Congress the benefit of the doubt. As evidence, they cite case history in the Supreme Court, and 11th Circuit, that demonstrate similar faith in the Legislature: “We generally presume Congress is knowledgeable about existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts."

Author

msaldana

Date

2008-09-09T23:19:33-06:00

ID

135528

Comment

Ladd, I am not commenting on the legal opinion, for I have not read it. I just wanted to discuss your point about cold case laws. The law at the time of the crime is the law that will be applied. You can't retroactively change statute of limitations and the like. That is why Jim Hoods conviction of Killen was so remarkable. They used the law of the time to hold open the statute of limitations, though I am sure it is still being challenged. As for the Klan affiliation argument.... I have not read the transcripts, so I cannot comment on this case. I don't know what role this played in the 5th circuit opinion. However, in general, Klan affiliation, under the rules of evidence, can be excluded in a lot of cases, depending on the facts and theories of the crime and theories of the defense. This is the same as gang affiliation, and past criminal acts sometimes can be excluded in various circumstances today. I know I would not want a jury to hear one of my accused was in a gang, and I would try to sculpt my defense to make sure that that would not be able to be admitted into evidence if at all possible, and I constantly craft trail strategies to avoid past charges being brought into the record. I understand your anger for Justice was not done. But as an old law professor use to tell his students when justice was brought up "Walk outside. Does it say school of justice... NO it says School of Law." The Law seeks justice, it does not always reach it, and sometimes does not serve it in certain cases. AGamma627

Author

AGamm627

Date

2008-09-09T23:21:39-06:00

ID

135529

Comment

(2 of 2) Going back to (a), I'm not convinced in reading the Fifth Circuit opinion that the 1972 amendment was a mere "procedural" change. Granted, this a layman/reporter's first (and second, and third) reading. But this explanation strikes me as particularly suspect: In this case, because the limitations period was changed indirectly through amendment of the punishment provision of (the kidnapping law), we must consider the practical effect of the 1972 amendment. In doing so, we are unable to say that it made a substantive change in the statute, so as to trigger the saving clause. The Supreme Court's decision in Marrero instructs us to consider two questions when facing this situation: (1) did the old statute's provisions constitute a form of criminal punishment; and, if so (2) did the amendment extinguish or ameliorate such penalty. Only if we answer both questions affirmatively does (the saving clause) apply to the defendant's criminal prosecution. Applying Marrero, we conclude that the death penalty provision of the pre-1972 version of (the kidnapping law) did not constitute a criminal punishment in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Jackson striking the death penalty from (the kidnapping law) as facially unconstitutional. Because the Court had severed the death penalty provision from the statute in 1968, Congress's legislative amendment in 1972 had no ameliorative effect upon (the kidnapping law's) criminal penalties. In other words, the Fifth Circuit is saying that the 1972 Congressional amendment had no substantive effect on the penalty applied to kidnapping because a Supreme Court ruling in 1968--U.S. v. Jackson--had already effectively downgraded the crime from a capital offense. That doesn't change the fact that, in 1964, kidnapping was punishable by death, and in 1972, it was not--which, to me, seems like a substantive change to the punishment. The legal explanation here, while it may be sound, seems slightly disingenuous. (Finally, it's interesting to note that, while the Fifth Circuit dismissed Judge Wingate's reliance on Jackson, the appellate court used the same case history to argue that the change in kidnapping law, from a crime punishable by death to a crime with a maximum life sentence--and, thus, a statute of limitations--was procedural, not substantive.)

Author

msaldana

Date

2008-09-09T23:22:17-06:00

ID

135530

Comment

The Fifth Circuit ruled only on the statute of limitations challenge.

Author

msaldana

Date

2008-09-09T23:25:51-06:00

ID

135531

Comment

Wow. Matt, I read the ruling (Adobe PDF) earlier tonight and tried, as best I could with my non-lawyer brain, to find a hole in it. You found one, and it looks big enough to drive a truck through. FWIW, the three-judge panel is all-white, all-male, and made up of justices aged 62, 74, and 78; all were appointed by Republican presidents; the oldest of the three, a Reagan appointee named Harold DeMoss, wrote the ruling.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-09-10T02:21:33-06:00

ID

135532

Comment

"Walk outside. Does it say school of justice... NO it says School of Law." If I were a cussin' woman, I'd say that explains a whole @#$% lot.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-10T06:00:56-06:00

ID

135533

Comment

The Fifth Circuit is not exactly friendly to the convicted. However, they must follow the law.

Author

QB

Date

2008-09-10T07:59:50-06:00

ID

135534

Comment

Sort of ironic that this bunch of supposed civil- libertarians wants a special set of rules for old civil rights cases.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T08:12:32-06:00

ID

135535

Comment

Tom, the link you posted to the PDF of the opinion isn't working, so I posted it at the bottom of the story for anyone who wants to read it.

Author

maggie

Date

2008-09-10T08:19:28-06:00

ID

135537

Comment

There needs to be a set of rules to deal with these cases. What is the point of having laws if we cannot have justice because of them?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-09-10T08:43:21-06:00

ID

135538

Comment

Well, Fat Harry, the law, like so many other things, is quite open to interpretation. That's why we have appeals courts and judges. If it were as simple as "follow the law," there would be no need for either.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-10T08:45:01-06:00

ID

135540

Comment

You can't have a set of special rules to deal with "certain cases". Did anyone learn anything in high school civics? We live in a country where everyone is equal under the law. You want a special set of rules in order to make sure that Klansmen accused of crimes against black people in the 60s are convicted. Does anyone see a problem with that?

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T08:46:57-06:00

ID

135541

Comment

If we were all equal under the law, Seale and Edwards would have been convicted in the sixties.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-10T08:54:33-06:00

ID

135542

Comment

Well, two wrongs don't make a right. If anything, our history should make us more committed to civil liberties, not less. But you guys are like those death penalty proponents who point to the heinousness of a particular crime as a reason to ignore the supposed "technicalities" that insure due process and a fair trial.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T08:55:32-06:00

ID

135543

Comment

You want a special set of rules in order to make sure that Klansmen accused of crimes against black people in the 60s are convicted. Does anyone see a problem with that? Nope. Regardless of when it happened, it is still painful for the surviving victims, and if the tables were turned, you would want the same treatment.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-10T08:59:59-06:00

ID

135544

Comment

By the way, I'm not a civil libertarian.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-10T09:01:37-06:00

ID

135545

Comment

So we just throw out the Constitution when the defendant is unpopular? And it is obvious, LW, that you are not a civil libertarian.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T09:02:18-06:00

ID

135546

Comment

I don't think Seale just crow just because the law allows him to walk free while his victims molder in a grave somewhere. That isn't justice. I'm also not talking about special rules for any class of people; the law (in general) should be amended/written to deal with the complexities of cases like this. The Law, which some people worship and abuse at the same time, is flexable.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-09-10T09:03:42-06:00

ID

135547

Comment

Jennifer2, lawbooks are filled with laws dealing with "special cases." I'm not a lawyer, but all you have to do is look a little. Let's start with "extenuating circumstances" that say a murder is more or less heinous depending on the type of weapon used and the motives of the accused. That's just one small example. No one is advocating throwing out the Constitution. But laws change. Frequently. This is one area where change would be welcomed for many upon whom justice has not been served.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-10T09:16:19-06:00

ID

135548

Comment

And it is obvious, LW, that you are not a civil libertarian. Let me clarify the statement. I don't wear the label of civil libertarian. Anyone who knows me knows that I don't like labels. That's the point I was trying to make. From Wikipedia: Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or who emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc).[1] Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology; rather, it is merely a collection of views on the specific issues of civil liberties and civil rights. Because of this, a civil libertarian outlook is compatible with many other political philosophies, and civil libertarianism is found on both the right and left of modern politics.[2] Are you saying that it is obvious that I am not concerned about civil rights?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-10T09:20:00-06:00

ID

135549

Comment

I am a lawyer and I suggest you non-lawyers look up "ex post facto". And LW, I would guess that you are concerned about civil rights for certain people but not so much for others.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T09:20:33-06:00

ID

135550

Comment

I don't recall advocating changing the laws to convinct Seale. I believe there are still shots at keeping him in prison, and the appeals process isn't done yet. What I do advocate is getting on the ball and making sure Federal/State laws don't allow for gaffes like this one again.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-09-10T09:24:44-06:00

ID

135551

Comment

Ironghost, you wrote: "the law (in general) should be amended/written to deal with the complexities of cases like this."

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T09:27:03-06:00

ID

135552

Comment

Jen: I did write that. Did I say "so we can get that moron Seale"? No.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-09-10T09:29:35-06:00

ID

135553

Comment

You didn't have to, Ironghost. The willingness of JFP bloggers to throw out the Constitution when it gets in the way of what they want (in this case, a conviction of Seale) is very, very sad.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T09:30:53-06:00

ID

135554

Comment

Jennifer2, First, stop putting words in people's mouths. Your ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated here. Second, what's your point? "Ex post facto" translates as "a thing done afterward." If you're saying that the decision was correct based on current law, then say that. And Iron, I agree.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-10T09:32:56-06:00

ID

135555

Comment

Jennifer2, I don't know you, and you don't know me, so I will end it here. I'm not the type to get into arguments with anonymous people online. If you want to continue to hurl insults, fine, but since I've been taught to turn the other cheek, I will respect you as a human being and not insult you in return. I will no longer respond at this point, and I leave you with this article. I was the one who organized this protest on behalf of white business owners, so I care about everyone, not just my own. Have a nice day.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-10T09:35:01-06:00

ID

135556

Comment

I feel horribly for the Dee and Moore family. Its an amazing testament to me that Moore said (in the AP story) he still feels justice was served towards Seale, even when the ruling was overturned. I am not sure I would be able to feel the same way if I were in his shoes.

Author

Sophie

Date

2008-09-10T09:39:33-06:00

ID

135557

Comment

I haven't hurled any insults. LW, you are the one who announced you aren't a civil libertarian. And I would venture that everyone who advocates that there ought to be special laws for old civil rights cases - you aren't civil libertarians either.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T09:41:09-06:00

ID

135559

Comment

J2, Your broad generalizations are insulting on many levels. Your retorts are childishly peevish, and demonstrate a blind spot that I would invite you to examine. If you are unable to write on this site without resorting to insults and generalizations you will not be allowed to continue blogging here. There are plenty of sites out there who go for that kind of thing, but this isn't one of them. If you can't substantively add to the conversation, you're not welcome.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-10T09:56:56-06:00

ID

135560

Comment

Jennifer2 et al, the personal insults end right here. On the issue, the problem is clear: Because the state, and often the feds, would not pursue justice in these cases for so many years, nor had laws for the feds to deal with them then, then the deck is stacked against justice in many of these cases. There is nothing in that that a civil libertarian can love. You can't just be a civil libertarian for those with good access to the legal system. The Moore and Dee families *never* had that. One irony, of course, is that because only the feds would go after the case, and felt locked into a kidnapping charge instead of murder due to their standing issues, then Seale gets one of the finest defense attorneys around appointed to him to help him find and milk the technicalities. Bully for him. So, when will the state bring murder charges? That seems the logical next step. Hood? And will Mr. Lampton pursue another trial as vigilantly as he did in the Minor-Diaz matters? Otherwise, I haven't read the decision. I'm on vacation and trying to maintain a bit of zen. And that means that I will delete any further personal insults I see without comment, and suspend your account. Try me.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-10T10:00:06-06:00

ID

135561

Comment

Oh, and Matt, thanks for showing up. You covered the trial better than anyone else, hands down. It's great to have your perspective now. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-10T10:08:18-06:00

ID

135563

Comment

Ladd, what are the fed's "standing issues"? It seems likely that if the prosecution had enough evidence to indict for murder, they would have gone for that to begin with instead of the admittedly iffy kidnapping charges. What am I missing?

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-10T10:23:11-06:00

ID

135564

Comment

There is no statute of limitations on murder. Jim Hood should pursue state-level charges. As for the statute of limitations - the Constitution forbids retroactive application of criminal statutes - i.e. making something a crime that was not previously. This has been extended to statute of limitations issues. If the statute was at 5 years when the crime was committed, I seriously doubt any judge would uphold a law that extends it indefinitely for certain categories of crime.

Author

QB

Date

2008-09-10T10:24:49-06:00

ID

135565

Comment

Federal crimes, in general, have to have a connection to interstate commerce or committed on federal property. So, the "average" murder isn't eligible for federal prosecution. As Fat Harry points out, it would be up to the state to pursue murder charges.

Author

Jennifer2

Date

2008-09-10T10:32:31-06:00

ID

135566

Comment

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2008-09-10T10:46:39-06:00

ID

135575

Comment

This is completely horrifying. Is there any word on the Dee/Moore families' civil suit against the county? I hope that doesn't suffer, too.

Author

Lizzy

Date

2008-09-10T14:43:15-06:00