Jackson Free Press

The Jackson Free Press has learned that Mayor Frank Melton could face a new wrinkle since pleading guilty to two misdemeanors and "no contest" to a third for violating the state's gun laws:

Article 6, Section 175. Liability and punishment of public officers.

All public officers, for wilful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office, shall be liable to presentment or indict ment by a grand jury; and, upon conviction, shall be removed from office, and otherwise punished as may be prescribed by law.

Attorney General Jim Hood has not returned call for comment. Stay tuned for follow-up.

Previous Comments

ID

124555

Comment

Very interesting....

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-15T18:26:52-06:00

ID

124556

Comment

While we're trying to sort this out, we welcome citizen journalistic input on this issue. Is anyone familiar with other "public officers" being indicted by grand juries and then convicted of those misdemeanors for crimes committed within the course of their job? These clause seems rather straightforward, but it'll be interesting to see how it's been applied in the past.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-15T18:32:45-06:00

ID

124557

Comment

Whatever the precedent, I doubt that FM would go gently into the good night without a huge fight. If this is pursued, look for a three ring circus.

Author

tombarnes

Date

2006-11-15T19:50:19-06:00

ID

124558

Comment

and, upon conviction, shall be removed from office I wonder about the "upon conviction" part. Is there a difference since he made a plea instead of actually going through the trial process?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-11-15T20:00:19-06:00

ID

124559

Comment

an initial response without looking at any case law is that the phrase "misdemeanor in office" may be the key in applying this constitutional section to melton's convictions. for instance, would a DUI conviction arising from an arrest while melton was spending the weekend in texas be a "misdemeanor in office"?on the otherhand the mayor appearing at a meeting at a school where he was the invited guest speaker while carrying a gun and with two jpd officers providing him security may be a "misdemeanor in office"

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-15T21:40:53-06:00

ID

124560

Comment

Interesting, chimney. Certainly, one could not argue that he was not acting as a "public officer" when he went to the church (in the Mobile Command Center) while out on one of his police raids, wearing his raid gear, to speak as the mayor about funding of the arts. Same with Jaycee Park. And he was appearing as the mayor at Mississippi College with JPD bodyguards in tow. You're right: It's not like he was on vacation somewhere not acting as the mayor. Also, it sounds like the grand jury part is very important, under this language.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-15T22:12:17-06:00

ID

124561

Comment

one way to determine the applicability of section 175 is for the attorney general ,the district attorney,or ANY CITIZEN ("on relation") to bring a quo warranto action in the circuit court of hinds county pursuant to section 11-39-1 et seq of the mississippi code to seek meltons removal from office.

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-15T22:15:04-06:00

ID

124562

Comment

Wonder how this has been tested; any knowledge?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-15T22:19:55-06:00

ID

124563

Comment

Cumbest v. Comm'rs. of Election, 416 So.2d 683 (1982) I am not sure nolo counts as a conviction. Also, where was the source of the surety regarding the requirement of a felony conviction? Anyone know? This was taken as a given. Joliff line that a felony is required takes some hits in the above. Still looking though. As for earlier analysis, this was clearly politically motivated, but who cares? Wasn't Mayor melton storming around jackson, armed, in a SWAT s.u.v. politicaly motivated as well? Live by it, die by it. The indictments were weak, the case was weak. I am more impressed Melton simply did not want to take the stand and apparently lie about having a gun. Without that, team D apparenty figured they would cop a misdemeanor from the jury anyway. Interesting.

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-11-15T22:28:58-06:00

ID

124564

Comment

He only pled no contest one one of the charges; he pled guilty on the other two. As for the source of the need for a felony conviction to be removed from office, we were quoted this by someone official, but I don't know off hand who. Adam might. It'd be something if everyone has been quoting incomplete info all this time, eh? I just don't get how it was politically motivated. Maybe we define "politically" different. But your next point is good: If he broke the law by carrying weapons into illegal places, and endangered lives (which he did, clearly), any political motivation is irrelevant. And he had shown every evidence that he had no intention of changing his ways, even after the AG warned him directly; the only ethical thing for the AG to do was charge him and try him. The misdemeanor cases weren't weak, but the felony one was always clearly the hardest to prove because there were no images. When he was wearing a suit, he wore the holster concealed under his jacket. One student saw the gun clearly; it's easy to believe that only one person might have seen a concealed weapon, but harder to prove when they deny it. You could see how they could have raised enough doubt with at least one juror. When you think about it, this fact makes it harder to argue that the AG brought the charges out of political motivation. You don't bring a difficult case against a fairly popular elected official in order to gain political points; you bring a case like that because you take your oath of office seriously.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-15T22:37:15-06:00

ID

124565

Comment

no factually similar mississippi case or attorney generals opinion. perhaps there may be an analagous law from another state that has been applied to facts akin to the melton convictions. will get back with you all on this.good night

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-11-15T22:42:51-06:00

ID

124566

Comment

More like "no factually similar situation." ;-) Groovy, chimney. Thanks for your sleuthing. I'm out, too. Lata, gatas.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-15T22:43:45-06:00

ID

124567

Comment

Thats a good point as to Hood, I had not really thought about that. I doubt that the same could be said of the axe grinding from the DA's office though. The fallout from this particular "speedy trial" I hope will be felt elsewhere. I did not realize that he had pled guilty on the MD charges, I don't recall that as how it was reported, but that reinforces my point on the Misdemeanor cases, they were weak, as you said, provided Melton was willing to deny possession. You have to admit that a big factor in the plea for the D was the apparent fact Melton was not willing to get on the stand and deny he had a gun. Since I don't think you doubt a lack balls in doing so, I assume you can concede some other, slightly more noble, motivation. I find that interesting, and makes me respect him a little more. Speaking of oaths and public duty, I know you care about Jackson, so do you think, given that this has politically hobbled the Mayor's re-election propects, that its about time to get back to the business of bird dogging the city, provided the mayor "behaves?". There are some important issues facing the bold new city besides our very own che Melton. Is the ink of the JFP better spent elsewhere?

Author

Niles Hooper

Date

2006-11-15T22:50:39-06:00

ID

124568

Comment

Niles, leave the good editors as be. Is a noble chase they pursue. Feeling Shaksperean tonight despite my spelling. I hate imposing reality, everbody calls me a curmudgeon. Ain't nobody going to pursue this path, political suicide. For a law student, go for it! it'll be a good life lesson.

Author

Doc Rogers

Date

2006-11-15T23:11:22-06:00

ID

124569

Comment

Regarding the political motivation, I've always said that if every criminal commited their crimes in front of an audience while slyly bragging about it to every media outlet they could find, the prosecutors would have a much easier time trying their cases.

Author

Darren Schwindaman

Date

2006-11-15T23:49:39-06:00

ID

124570

Comment

Amen, Darren. Very well said. I don't know why, but the phrase "Constitutional Removal" sounds like something that could achieved with a high-fiber diet. Yes, you heard right--the sole contribution this Ph.D. student and author of 22 books has made to the Frank Melton trial debate is a poop joke. Sorry, but y'all have already used up all the good ideas and I don't really think there's much else I could say worth saying that hasn't already been said. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-16T04:37:31-06:00

ID

124571

Comment

Tom, exactly how long have you been waiting to mention you are a Ph.D. student and author of 22 books? LOL.

Author

E

Date

2006-11-16T09:11:04-06:00

ID

124572

Comment

Sorry, but y'all have already used up all the good ideas and I don't really think there's much else I could say worth saying that hasn't already been said. Yogi Berra has arisen! 8-0

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-11-16T09:19:44-06:00

ID

124573

Comment

Tom can mention that any time he wants, E. If there is anything Mississippians need to do more often is go public with our accomplishments. This here's a great venue for that—because a lot of non-Mississippians (or ex-pats) read the site, too. Carry on.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T11:25:13-06:00

ID

124574

Comment

Well, it sounds like Dale Danks has put this question to rest for everyone, or at least for The Clarion-Ledger (smile): Shortly after the plea, there was a question of whether Melton still could be removed from office. The Mississippi Constitution states that public officials found guilty of "willful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office" must be removed from office. "If that were the case, any elected official who ran a stop sign or pled guilty to fishing without a license would have to resign," Danks said. The line in the state constitution relates to crimes that show a neglect of duty, and Melton's gun offenses do not rise to that level, he said. And that was it. The Clarion-Ledger could have then followed up with the point that the Constitution does not simply state "wilful neglect of duty"; it actually says "wilful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office." Also, am I mistaken, but do grand juries get involved with the running stop signs or fishing without a license? Remarkable.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T11:48:47-06:00

ID

124575

Comment

Just saw that Howard Ballou of WLBT picked up this thread, too, last night: But article six, section 175 of the Mississippi Constitution, titled: liability and punishment of public officers says: "All public officers, for wilful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office, shall be liable to presentment or indictment by a grand jury; and, upon conviction, shall be removed from office, and otherwise punished as may be prescribed by law. " In light of that, we asked Mayor Melton if he would resign. Melton said, "No, that's not applicable in this case.." Attorney General Jim Hood's spokesman, Jan Hedgepeth, said Hood was attending a funeral wednesday evening and would comment on the constitutional provision tomorrow.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T14:20:10-06:00

ID

124576

Comment

The Clarion Ledger has a HARSH editorial on Melton in today's paper: Melton: Jackson's Marion Barry a Cruel Joke http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/20061116/OPINION01/611160329

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2006-11-16T14:49:51-06:00

ID

124577

Comment

Well, there's behaving and then there's behaving. I imagine that Melton will hold off on strapping guns to himself and directing legally dubious police actions, even as he vows to get back to fighting crime. If he is unable to restrain himself, I am sure that Green will put him in jail. On the other hand, will he ever start behaving like a mayor? Crime has gone way, way up on his watch (violent crime is up about 40 percent), perhaps because Melton's raids are all show. They have not produced more than a trickle of arrests, and those arrests were for petty offenses. His police department is adrift and understaffed. The city's strategic plan is a joke, like something a student throws together the night before their paper is due. The city's lobbyist, Marcus Ward, spends his time at Melton's side as his "chief of staff." Worst of all, Mr. Melton has turned his own unwillingness to follow the law into a political campaign. You can hold whatever opinion of the AG and the DA that you like, but a grand jury of ordinary folks thought a trial was necessary. Melton responded with a smear campaign. If he had shown one ounce of remorse or humility yesterday, it would have given me some hope for his future in office. He did not say: "I was warned about guns, but I chose to ignore those warnings because I felt like the mayor can do whatever he wants. I was wrong, and now I'm going to follow the law whether I like it or not." Instead, he immediately denied that he had done anything wrong, just minutes after pleading guilty to two counts and no contest on another. Of course, the reckoning is yet to come. This spring, Melton will face much more serious charges, and he will not be able to plea his way out of them with a suspended sentence and some fines. If he pleas, he will surely have to plea to a felony, and that will mean his removal from office. If he goes to trial, he's facing an uphill battle. He hasn't even denied going into the house and smashing it up. Instead, his argument has been that the house deserved it, or that he should be able to do whatever he thinks fit to fight crime, nevermind that his crime fighting is appallingly ineffective. This is hubris, pure and simple, and it will catch up with him before all is said and done.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-16T15:31:56-06:00

ID

124578

Comment

So you are saying Frank will refrain from strapping on?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-16T15:38:58-06:00

ID

124579

Comment

He'd better. He'll go to jail if he doesn't.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T16:01:31-06:00

ID

124580

Comment

This question needs to be clarified: Should Melton have to surrender his Mississippi Firearms Permit? Let's examine the facts: 1. He's been convicted of three gun crimes. 2. He's on probation for 1 year. 3. He's on bond with restrictions regarding firearms. 4. He's shown that he will not obey laws regarding guns. Does this sound like someone who should be carrying firearms? Plus, if the conditions of his bond stipulate that he not be around firearms. Why wouldn't he have to give up the permit at least until the outcome of the next trial? The Department Of Public Safety should be asked about this.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-11-16T17:42:39-06:00

ID

124581

Comment

Ray? What about your legal take on this?

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-11-16T17:46:38-06:00

ID

124582

Comment

Well, now they are going after Judge Green just as they went after Peterson. Minus the derogatory comments from gang members! I think Melton's team has issues with strong women. This looks like cracks in Melton's armor.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-16T18:02:03-06:00

ID

124583

Comment

Cliff, I didn't read this column yet. I had a distaste for it from the beginning because I felt it was mere grasping for desperate straws to rid us of Frank. I also anticipated his lawyers had studied the statute and idea before going through with the plea. I'll read it and comment later. Your proposition makes sense to me. Judge Green will not likely compel him to give up the permit but surely will jail him if he violates the conditions of probation.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-16T18:06:11-06:00

ID

124584

Comment

I hope they fail at rescusing judge Green. Judge Green doesn't agree that voir dire is a critical as some lawyers think it is. Successful trial lawyers know how important it is though. Not letting them have their way on voir dire limits the defense at getting rid of bias or unfavorable jurors. The defense knows that unless they get the jury they want they're likely screwed if the prosecution has good facts.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-16T18:13:09-06:00

ID

124585

Comment

Still waiting for Hood's comments, but other attorneys are telling us that it looks like any citizen could now ask for Melton to be removed, due to his convictions on gun charges for illegal actions he took as mayor as Jackson. Also, we heard both WLBT and WAPT report tonight that he may be removed under the Mississippi Constitution based on this clause.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T18:28:05-06:00

ID

124586

Comment

Wonder is this revelation (first by the JFP, y'all remember) has anything to do with Melton's new motion about Tomie Green? Yesterday, it seemed like they were happy with the outcome. Now, there's a problem? Sounds like they might have poked around the constitution a bit, eh?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T18:29:07-06:00

ID

124587

Comment

Just got a short statement from Hood: "Removal from office was not a part of our plea offer. Our office is prohibited from opining on matters before a court." I'm not sure what this adds; it certainly doesn't clarify whether or not citizens can demand that Melton be removed from office now that he has been convicted. We'll stay on it and report back. This story is clearly building. Stay tuned.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-16T18:49:40-06:00

ID

124588

Comment

I am not a lawyer, so this is just thinking out loud, but this motion against Green by Melton's lawyers seems like strategery to me, i.e. kinda dumb. Again, I don't understand the ins-and-outs of voire dire, "to tell the truth" as Green explained to jurors, but it seems like an awfully long shot that the Supreme Court would remove her over exercising discretion in questions asked of jurors, especially if those questions seemed designed to taint the jury with information extraneous to the trial. Can any of the lawyers out there offer an off-the-cuff assessment of whether Green's restrictions egregiously violated precedent? I imagine that the Supreme Court is generally hesitant to meddle in trials, especially trials that are still consumed by pre-trial legal jousting. Wouldn't this be a matter better contested in appeal? Assuming the S.C. passes, don't Melton's lawyers risk antagonizing Green by trying to "go behind her back"? Green is a formidable figure, and I do not mean to suggest that she would have an emotional response to Melton's lawyers trying to slide into a friendlier court. Still, how hard do they want to push her? I can understand why they would prefer another judge, one that will allow them to introduce non-evidence like the fact that Melton is really, really against crime. That crime happens. That sometimes it's not the facts that matter, it's what's in a person's heart. Et cetera ad nauseum. But my guess is that they are stuck with Green. Any professionals care to comment on how these things operate on a gut level between attorneys and judges?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-16T20:07:31-06:00

ID

124589

Comment

Some speak of Melton's violations as if it is no big deal. It this is true, then what about the kids in Jackson Public Schools who have had permanent dismissals from the JPS system for bringing a wepon to school? I would like to know how parents of these youngsters must feel to know that our school system practice 0 (ZERO) tolerance for our children; yet, the "System" allows an adult to get away with murder, figuratively speaking! What a dichotomy!

Author

justjess

Date

2006-11-17T13:12:06-06:00

ID

124590

Comment

WAPT had a little follow-up on this issue: Mississippi's constitution has a provision that could force Mayor Frank Melton to step down after he was convicted of a misdemeanor -- but it's up to the attorney general to interpret the law. Melton pleaded guilty Wednesday to two misdemeanor gun charges and no-contest to a felony gun charge that was reduced to a misdemeanor. Attorney General Jim Hood said that the terms of Melton's probation are that he can’t drink alcohol, supervise minors or carry a gun. "Removal from office was not a part of our plea agreement. Our office is prohibited from opining or commenting on matters before a court," Hood's office said in a statement. As we're beginning to understand it, I'm not sure that the bolded part is absolutely correct. We're working on an update on this—but it seems that it would be up to a judge that this issue is brought before to make this decision. It doesn't seem accurate to say that it is up to the AG to decide whether this would apply to Melton in other words. That decision would likely be made when either the AG, DA or citizens bring this before a court. In other words, this options seems squarely on the table. More soon.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-17T13:22:29-06:00