Jackson Free Press

The Clarion-Ledger is reporting that the Mississippi Supreme Court has upheld the order that city officials cannot refer to the Ridgeway Street duplex, allegedly demolished by Mayor Frank Melton and his entourage, as a "drughouse." The decision is a blow to the defense, which is trying to defend the mayor and his bodyguards' actions by claiming that the private home was a "drughouse" or a "crackhouse."

The Jackson Free Press broke the Ridgeway Street demolition story on. Read the original story here.

Previous Commentsshow

I don't think its necessarily a blow to his defense if he can actuall show evidence of drug activity. IF I said. Having written that, there is the slander aspect also.

Kingfish

Dec 15 2006

Here is some follow-up in today's Goliath. This quote from Councilman Allen is real surprising: City Council President Ben Allen said he was surprised the gag order was upheld but would not say whether he felt the city should appeal it again. Now why is he surprised? I'm surprised he's surprised! Is he surprised because he WANTS it to be called a drug-house, so it will help Melton's defense? Is he surprised because he BELIEVED the claims that Melton and his people fed the public and courts which is now moot? It's a shame he is showing any impartiality anyway. At least Councilwoman Barrett-Simon and Councilman Crisler took the high road and appeared to stay neutral even if they aren't: Ward 7 Councilwoman Margaret Barrett-Simon and Ward 6 Councilman Marshand Crisler said they do not think the city should seek reconsideration. Both said they felt the Supreme Court panel's decision was fair. "I don't see the drug house injunction as an infringement of rights," Crisler said. "As City Council members, we should watch what we say. When there is no litigation involved, we have complete freedom of speech. But when there is litigation, we don't want to taint the case and the potential jury pool." That is so true. Why stick your nose into this by claiming the house was "this or that," and worry more about the image of the City and how to protect the people's money from Melton's antics.

pikersam

Dec 16 2006

I think pike is right.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Dec 16 2006

I don't think its necessarily a blow to his defense if he can actuall show evidence of drug activity. Actually, Kingfish, as I understand it, drug activity is not a legal defense for these crimes. They didn't have a warrant. So the only possible reason, it seems, to call it a "crackhouse" or "drughouse" is to sway public opinion in advance, and through the media, and thus taint the jury pool. So, yes, I think this is a serious blow to the defense, just as the arrests of Taylor and Bibbs have been in recent weeks. It make the cases harder to pre-try in the Court of Sound Bites.

DonnaLadd

Dec 17 2006

Likewise, in the gun cases, the fact that Melton said (sometimes) that he was living under threat wasn't a *legal* defense that could be introduced into court. That's why they settled for guilty pleas. They had no defense had the jury choosed to believe Stamboulieh over Recio's last-minute memory that Melton had put the gun back in the car.

DonnaLadd

Dec 17 2006

I didn't think it was a legal defense either. I think as you said it was a way to sway public opinion. I just don't think it really would've swayed a jury that much is all. That is really only part where you and I differ.

Kingfish

Dec 17 2006

Gotcha. I'm not saying it would work, either. The defense seems to want to try it in the court of public opinion, regardless of veracity of their statements. And for the record, I don't believe they believed it was going to work in the gun cases, either. That's why Melton settled for a criminal record and a year's probation instead. (And, remember, just like Mr. Taylor and Mr. Bibbs, Melton will go to jail if he's caught violatin terms of his probation.) He would never have settled for such a thing if he thought he will winning in the court of public opinion. As much as many criticized the AG's plea decision, I actually think it showed that they are interested in the immediate ability to keep Mr. Melton from killing himself or someone else rather than risking the case by one juror believing Recio. The main thing is that the probation should keep him from creating danger—and he faces much more serious charges in the spring. I don't care what he tries to say was going on in that house, jurors are going to have a real hard time understanding why he felt the need to cart around kids in serious criminal trouble, like Mr. Taylor, and put them up to destroying private homes. It sounds like the court decision will help keep the court focused on what it's actually about. I'm not a big fan of gag orders, but we are dealing with extraordinary people here willing to go to great lengths to justify really nasty stuff.

DonnaLadd

Dec 17 2006

Correct, Ladd. I didn't want to see Mr. Melton leave office; just change. Although I am beginning to believe that his character isn't what I thought it was, and what I thought it was wasn't very high. I still find it very ironic. He tells Faye Peterson she wasn't doing her job that's why crime was so bad and he wasn't making any progress. Then he goes and commits a crime and here comes the indictment in less than a week. I guess she had to show him she WAS doing her job. I want to see the best for Frank, but his pride shall cause him to fall. I hope he didn't do it, and is just thinks he has been such a good liar to the public to get convicted. I don't know if he even understands the severity of the sentence. If it was me and I could either resign, or possibly go to trial and get convicted for something I didn't do. More than likely run a city that was so beloved to me through the dirt in the process. I would have resigned, and I would have saved myself and the city from the embarrassment. I would have instead taken a backseat to politics in the city, and pursued another way to improve the city. I hope Melton, and his lawyers know what they are doing. I believe Faye has it out for Frank every since he tried to throw her under the bus and blame all the city's woes on her. She isn't going to go into this trial lightly. I am sure she has alot of tricks in her bag that the defense doesn't know about, and she will surely be bringing in outside council. This promises to be a national news controversy that the nation will be watching in suspense. I think it should be very entertaining.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Dec 17 2006

True enough. But like I asked before. I want to know why Melton is indicted so quickly but this kid has been awaiting trial over a year. I want to know who is reponsible. A backed up docket? the DA? police department dragging their feet cuz its Melton's kid? I want to know.

Kingfish

Dec 17 2006

Backed up docket? The judges aren't moving them fast enough, and people aren't getting out of jail quick enough. Not enough people in DA's office and public defenders to handle the cases even if the judges moved the cases at a quick enough pace.

optimisticaboutNewJackCity

Dec 18 2006

hen he goes and commits a crime and here comes the indictment in less than a week. I guess she had to show him she WAS doing her job. The indictment came a month after the alleged crime. And it's important to remember that he was the one who forced the indictment to be quick. He refused to put down his weapons otherwise. And he had unlimited use of police equipment in order to help commit further crimes should he have chosen to. This is an unusual position for a criminal to be in—it would have been highly irresponsible for them not to indict quickly. As to your question, we want to know, too. From what I am beginning to understand, much of the backlog is sitting with some of the judges; it's even possible that some of it is political, believe it or not. Certainly, it seemed to work that way in the past; the judges sit on cases and folks like Melton blame the D.A.'s office. Hmmm. I mean, why did it take Judge Yerger this long to revoke Michael Taylor's bond (notice he didn't revoke until after we revealed that Taylor had been arrested almost a month before and was sitting in the Hinds County Detention Center). And Taylor's armed robbery was a year ago; why hasn't that case moved faster? And why didn't the police show up quicker when the victim of the carjacking told them she had the guy coming to the Conoco? Why didn't police/sheriff announce that Taylor had been arrested for the carjacking? I agree with you that it's mighty suspicious. And it goes without saying that Shirlene Anderson has shown no indication that she is there for any reason except to try to do Frank Melton's bidding. What. A. Mess.

DonnaLadd

Dec 18 2006

"Now why is he surprised?" I can't speak for Ben Allen, but I'm also surprised the order wasn't reversed. Prior restraints on speech are subjected to incredibly strict scrutiny (at least in federal courts), and for good reason. Prior restraints are horrible, horrible things in a democracy.

Curt Crowley

Dec 18 2006

Of course it's true, Curt, that "prior restraint" in general is not a good thing. However, as you know, there are extraordinary circumstances that can also bump against other individual people's rights. In this case, there is a lot more at stake than simply the "free speech" rights of city officials to try to sway public opinion and even taint jury pools. It could well be the case that some city officials have even been told to spread a falsehood along the way by their superiors in city government. And it is very interesting that city officials are demanding this right under the circumstances—being that the fact of whether the duplex is a "drughouse" is irrelevant to the actual defense under the laws he is charged under, as I understand it. It seems clear that they are trying to find a way to try this in the court of public opinion, and the public has a clear interest in not allowing certain public officials a way to twist the justice system for their use. And it's not like major principles or "prior restraint" precedent is at stake here, being that the circumstances are so unusual. I'm comfortable with the ruling, and am not surprised by it.

DonnaLadd

Dec 18 2006

Donna I love your commentary on this. Sorry I didn't read it earlier. You know I'm glad judge Green was upheld and the plot of the city isn't working.

Ray Carter

Dec 18 2006

Whether it is the lady around the corner or the lady in Pearl, it was a "rental house." Period. That is all you can call it factually. Can you say, it is "a rental house where suspected drug activity has occurred?" Sure. That is probably true. But, since Melton and his clique tried to label it a "crack-house" or a "drug-house" to garner public sympathy for his actions, this ruling is not very surprising. Look at it this way, if you were pulled over in your car and had some drugs on you. Sure they can take your car, etc. But, in court do they call it a "drug car" or a "crack car?" No. They might be able to if it had false panels all over? Even then it may only be "a vehicle for drug transportation?" Melton is trying to take common jargon and use it in his behalf in the court of public opinion.

pikersam

Dec 18 2006

In other words, try in the Court of Sound Bites. (I loved that so much I have to repeat it.) Melton is nothing if not a sound-bite machine. It's up to Jacksonians to say, "enough."

DonnaLadd

Dec 18 2006