Jackson Free Press

Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green threatened attorneys with $2,500 fines in the Ridgeway case involving Mayor Frank Melton and Jackson Police Department detectives Michael Recio and Marcus Wright on Monday. All three men face a number of felony counts for their involvement in the demolition of a Ridgeway Street duplex on Aug. 26.

"From this day forward, I expect all parties to obey my instructions," Green said, in reference to a gag order she imposed last week.

Last Thursday, Green sealed a motion filed by Wright attorney Robert Smith, saying it violated her gag order. Though the motion was sealed, an unsealed response filed by the district attorney's office sheds some light on the original motion's contents. In particular, the motion by Smith made reference to a DEA raid Wright claims he participated in on June 1, 2005. Apparently, the motion claimed that several drug busts were made at the Ridgeway duplex at that time.

In response, Assistant District Attorney Dewey Arthur wrote that Smith did not present any legal reason why the alleged DEA raid should be admitted into the Ridgeway trial at all. Furthermore, none of the drug busts Wright claims he made were ever presented to the district attorney's office for prosecution. Smith's motion was a thinly veiled attempt to violate the gag order, Arthur argued.

"Defendants are attempting to convince the potential jury venire, that Evans Welch, a mentally disabled schizophrenic, is a significant threat to the community controlling some major drug distribution warehouse," Arthur wrote.

Green apparently agreed, expressing displeasure at the motion. "The motion was inartfully pled and misleading on points of law. ... The court does not participate in political games or political maneuvers," Green said.

Matthew Steffey, a professor at Mississippi College School of Law, said the motion filed by Smith was not legally relevant to the criminal trial. "Even if the duplex was the center of a drug ring, it's still criminal for someone, including the mayor, to demolish a house without due process," Steffey said. "Could the DEA raid be a cause for legal demolition? Sure. But that's the whole point. There was no due process."

Steffey said that it was reasonable for Green to be concerned about such a motion tainting potential jurors. "In the same way that they keep calling the place a 'crack house,' this is an attempt to shape public perception. The jury has to decide the case on facts of law, not out of sympathy for the mayor. Juries are supposed to be impartial."

Green spoke at length on the gag order she imposed, saying it was essential to a fair trial. "It is the duty of this court to provide the state of Mississippi and the defendants a fair and just trial," Green said. "The cases before this court should not and will not be decided in the court of public opinion. A criminal prosecution is not a popularity contest."

All legal parties involved in the criminal trial were present, including JPD Chief Shirlene Anderson, City Attorney Sarah O'Reilly-Evans, Deputy City Attorney Pieter Teeuwissen, District Attorney Faye Peterson, attorneys Robert Smith and Omar Nelson, along with Wright and Recio. City employee Stephanie Parker-Weaver was in the gallery, though she is not formally involved in the case. She is, however, publicly telling Jacksonians that the case is a witch hunt. Melton did not attend but was represented by counsel.

Green warned attorneys to interpret her gag order broadly. "The court has not been pleased by subtle attempts to violate the gag order in the last week. ... 'No comment' are words that will serve you well," Green said.

Steffey said that it is common for courts to impose gag orders in high-profile cases, "especially when you have parties like the mayor who has unlimited access to the media."

Last week, Melton attorney Dale Danks objected to the fact that Attorney Dennis Sweet, who represents duplex owner Jennifer Sutton, was not called to Monday's hearing. "You file a restraining order, that's talking," Danks told The Clarion-Ledger. "I didn't see Dennis Sweet's name on (the order)."

On Sept. 27, Sweet filed a restraining order against Melton and other city officials asking that they stop referring to Sutton's duplex as a "drug house."

"No one has ever informed (Sutton) personally, or through her attorneys, that the property located at 1305 Ridgeway Street was an alleged 'drug house,' or in any way connected or associated with illegal activity(ies)," Sweet's motion stated.

Sweet is not part of the criminal trial against Melton et al., however, so the gag order Green imposed last week does not apply to him. On Monday, Green said that the unfolding civil case has no bearing on criminal proceedings, rebuffing Danks' attempt to apply the gag order to Sweet.

Green also addressed comments made by Melton regarding the terms of his bond on Sept. 20. Melton said then that he had "never agreed" to the term of his bond forbidding him from using the Mobile Command Center. He lashed out at District Attorney Faye Peterson. "She's wrong. She can't restrict me from my job responsibilities," Melton told The Clarion-Ledger. "I will continue to use it." Melton later retracted his statement but vowed to discuss the issue with Peterson.

On Monday, Green put an end to any notion of a negotiation between defendants and the district attorney's office. "The court reminds defense attorneys that this court sets the terms of bond, not the district attorney's office," Green said. She expressed no interest in relaxing terms of the bond.

In fact, Green said that though she had waived measures the court usually demands of defendants out on bond, such as mandatory alcohol and drug testing, violations of the terms of their bond could result in harsher terms, including contempt of court, revocation of bond and electronic monitoring.

"The court directs the sheriff's department to stand ready to incarcerate defendants if necessary," Green said.

Green also advised Wright and Recio that it would be in their best interest to stop serving as Melton's bodyguards. "It is neither prudent nor recommended that defendants continue in behavior that may expose them to further charges," Green said.

The judge also indicated that she will not grant attorneys' motion for a separate trial for Wright and Recio. Attorneys for the men had said that they wanted a speedier trial than the March court date, but Green said that March was speedy considering her trial calendar.

Previous Comments

ID

66916

Comment

Green also advised Wright and Recio that it would be in their best interest to stop serving as Melton’s bodyguards. “It is neither prudent nor recommended that defendants continue in behavior that may expose them to further charges,” Green said. Funny, I saw Recio walking out of City Hall to a black cop car (parked where the mayor usually parks) while talking on a cell phone. Appeared to be unlocking the door to the car. So, these guys get to lounge around at City Hall and have access to city vehicles? Absolutely amazing!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-04T18:37:21-06:00

ID

66917

Comment

This is slowly buy surely truing into the "Amos N' Andy Show." Some people are laughing and are just waiting to see what frank and his fools will do next. The laughter will turn into frowns when we all wake up and not only smell the coffee - We will see the coffee pot. This is history repeating itself with a group of folks who didn't learn anything from the past. I saw an A-American on yeasterday who said the following: (1) they need to leave frank alone. (2) Fran;k got everybody scared (3) Frank is tough and they can't touch him (4) We need frank because he is really bringing down crime. All of these things were said without a pause. Theabsence of being able to do critical thinking and to use common sense are the root causes of the problem this City is facing. I wanted to just fall on my face and scream. Because of my fear of violating the noise ordinance, I just dusted myself off and and said, Lord, I hope that you have this thing under control because right now, we are going back to the cotton fields, quick, fast and in a hurry! Massa will be different tho' Different color, anyway.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-10-11T14:55:49-06:00

ID

66918

Comment

we even have Kingfish for the show.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-10-11T15:09:21-06:00

ID

66919

Comment

this is just in from the ledge about today's hearing regarding the house on Ridgeway. The City put up a witness who says she smoked crack at the house. A woman testified this morning in Hinds County Circuit Court that she smoked crack cocaine at the duplex on Ridgeway Street in Jackson that the mayor and his entourage are accused of damaging with sledgehammers. more... Tammy Callahan said she also served as a lookout at the duplex, which Jackson city officials had described as a drug house. But during cross examination Callahan could not remember the address or the color of the duplex. Say what! She couldn't even remember the color of the house! It's green and I've never been there! Only this adminstration would drag a crackhead to court to testify on the City's behalf. I mean, what crackhead would go to court on behalf of the City and testify? And, what crackhead would do anything remotely like this unless they were (cough, cough) getting some help? this administration is a joke!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-11T16:14:28-06:00

ID

66920

Comment

I'm kinda questioning relevance here. A) They found a crack pipe there, so there is no surprise that crack might have been done there at some point. That still would not make it a "crack house," if one knows what a crackhouse is. More importantly, B), so what? The police did not have a warrant, and if they had had one, what Melton is accused of doing, including getting a kid to sledgehammer the house, would still be criminal. It makes sense that the owner is trying to stop the city from calling it a "crackhouse" in order to manipulate potential jurors in advance. And having a woman show up and say she smoked crack once doesn't in any way negate that. What a farce this all is. It is all turning out worse than I imagined during the campaign -- and I imagined pretty bad based on what I saw from Melton and his supporters.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-11T16:26:46-06:00

ID

66921

Comment

Then you got this from the City Atty. Teeuwissen: Pieter Teeuwissen, special assistant to the city attorney, said the city is fighting the injunction because of freedom of speech rights. “What’s at stake are the First Amendment rights of seven City Council members, one mayor and 2,200 city employees,” he said. Teeuwissen also said the city’s legal department will submit a written offer to settle Sutton’s damage claim today. “We will offer to pay to repair the house and bring it up to code,” he said. Say what again! What about the First Amendment rights of the home owner to not be castigated in the press by the same people that tore up her house? Does she not have a right to fight for her property to not be called a "crack house?" And the City's offer to fix the house is all heart! Now that I have seen Teeuwissen on TV, is he not a mob looking lawyer or what? Dude go back to whatever wrestling league you came from! It is worse than we could have imagined! It he will not get any better no matter how many millions are poured into redevelopment.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-11T16:38:49-06:00

ID

66922

Comment

I seem to remember Conservatives raising hell because when Janet Reno decided to attack the Branch Davidian compound, it came out that the feds lied on the warrant (Child abuse/molestation is a state jurisdiction, not a federal one and Texas had investigated and found no evidence of it at the time). However, when its Frank tearing down a house and lying about it, then its ok.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-10-11T16:40:22-06:00

ID

66923

Comment

Kingfish, it appears there are a lot of things that the local conservatives are willing to let pass when it comes to Melton. It is the most hypocritical support I think I have witnessed since being in MS. He absolutely is the polar opposite of most of the core values that conservatives hold dear and expect in their candidate personally and professionally!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-11T16:44:35-06:00

ID

66924

Comment

Agreed, Pike. I hear that the white-conservative meme for Melton (of those white conservatives who still support him) is that he is being "persecuted." Persecuted? What happened to taking personal responsibiilty for your actions and obeying the law, boys? Hypocrites, indeed. And it doesn't even seem as if those amazing thinkers bother to consider whether or not he is actually guilty of committing the crimes. They just wan't him off -- because they don't want to be wrong, I guess. I've never seen such small-mindedness in my life. Of course, that is a small, if loud, group we're talking about. And I'll be honest: I don't care what people like that think. Never have. That's why they hate me. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-11T16:48:52-06:00

ID

66925

Comment

better yet, rule of law they quoted during impeachment. I do believe in rule of law but the rules are set up to protect citizens from the government. I guess they think its ok that in a drug raid in North Miss that the cops entered the wrong house on a "tip" and an 80 year old couple lived there and was hurt by the cops. I wonder how they would like it if some Black radical mayor started tearing down a house that he said was a problem in rolling meadows yet there was no proof it was.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-10-11T16:54:32-06:00

ID

66926

Comment

Pike, Your postings are normally on the money but i take exception to your derogation of Pieter. he is an ethical attorney and is merely representing his client by articulating the position of the city administration and offering to provide restitution for the damages caused by one of its officials. he is a tougaloo grad and has a law degree from the university of minnesota. he has a great grasp of municipal and constitutional law and is diligent in his work.he is a devoted husband and father and i have never heard of him doing anything to misrepresent facts or law to any court.

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-10-11T16:55:30-06:00

ID

66927

Comment

and there are a long line of cases concerning the invidiousness of court ordered prior restraints on speech that judge green must be cognizant of. some might argue that the remedy is not an injunction but a defamation suit for damages and "counterspeech" by welch and the property owner.

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-10-11T16:59:50-06:00

ID

66928

Comment

Sorry about that chimney. I was just going on his wild looks and hair! I should have distinguished that. He probably is a good guy and just doing his job. My bad! I wouldn't want to run into him ina dark alley! ;-)

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-11T17:00:22-06:00

ID

66929

Comment

he is about 6'2' and heavyset

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-10-11T17:09:47-06:00

ID

66930

Comment

I'm concerned about prior restraint, too. But this does seem to be a particularly difficult case, what with the very organized efforts to get people to "vote" Melton innocent, before a jury is even picked. I'm not sure what the answer is—but I can't believe that it is for city employees, and directors including the fire and police chief, to show up at press conferences during the workday to support his "innocence" for the TV cameras. They're clearly trying to try this in a very sneaky way before it ever goes to trial. I want Melton to get a fair trial, but I also want justice to be meted out where it needs to be, and not truncated by a coordinated public-relations campaign.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-11T17:17:22-06:00

ID

66931

Comment

Pieter is ethical for sure. Were he not so, he could be filthy rich considering what he knows and has seen and experienced. He took a gigantic pay cut to take job as deputy City Attorney. I'm still surprised he did it.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-10-11T17:36:07-06:00

ID

66932

Comment

Pike, Pieter is a nice and honorable man who happens to be a good father, husband, lawyer, and friend to many people. I bet you would like him if you knew his background and life story. He's trying to do what he thinks the job compels him too. And I know for a fact that he wishes he didn't have to deal with all the sh!t Frank is sending his way. He's not personally condoning Frank's actions, he's just trying to save the city money and harm despite Frank. But I'm not trying to change your opinion. He grew up on Tougaloo's campus where his father was a teacher. He's homegrown, and proud to be a Mississippians, Tougaloo College, and University of Minnesota Law Graduate.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-10-11T17:53:18-06:00

ID

66933

Comment

I'm concerned about prior restraint, too. But this does seem to be a particularly difficult case, what with the very organized efforts to get people to "vote" Melton innocent, before a jury is even picked. I'm not sure what the answer is—but I can't believe that it is for city employees, and directors including the fire and police chief, to show up at press conferences during the workday to support his "innocence" for the TV cameras. Ladd Absolutely! This should be a huge concern to the courts and the people of Jackson. they are wasting tax payer dollars to go rally for the mayor and his troubles. "Yes men" is an understatement! I can only imagine how many went to help their job security? I can't imagine that they really think the mayor did the right thing on Ridgeway and that he is innocent? OK guys, no where did I ever question Pieter's ethics or personal life. The guy is on TV with constant 5 day beard, funky glasses, and slick hair. Forgive me for conjuring up images of Cindy Lopper's manager, "Captain" Lou Albano, or a scene from a mob movie! Would Led Zepplin's manager have been a better comparison? Please, forgive me for my "Kingfish moment" ;-)

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-11T19:11:37-06:00

ID

66934

Comment

Way to diss Kingfish, Pike. (snicker) I must say, Kingfish was making up for some lost time today, eh? Welcome back, King.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-11T20:53:32-06:00

ID

66935

Comment

Well here are two things that could be done in reaction to the fire chief and police chief showing up in solidarity at the press conference. the council president could immediately call the fire chief up for confirmation,at which time we can see if there are four votes for his confirmation. next,the council could adopt a censure resolution or vote of no confidence on the police chief.what say, Ben Allen?

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-10-11T22:51:34-06:00

ID

66936

Comment

I've been very respectful thank you very much. I wasn't aware I was having any such moments today. ;-)

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-10-11T22:55:16-06:00

ID

66937

Comment

Well, I am not too impressed with how he is coming across in the press. Here is WLBT's report on today's hearings. Leaving court after Wednesday's hearing, Pieter Teeuwissen told reporters, "We have a first amendment right to speak and if the judge says this is a litmus test, as to whether we can use the term drug house or crack house whats to say a court won't come along with a litmus test as to what city officials can or can't say on some other matter." So, isn't he violating the restraining order by mentioning "the term drug house or crack house" instead of just Ms. Sutton's house? Why can't they just call it a rental house where the tenant is accused of using/selling drugs. Ms. Sutton didn't do anything. Nor did the house! And, if using drugs like marijuana constitutes a "drug house" then you can classify several homes in the 39216 as "drug houses." Then there was this: Pieter Teeuwissen replied, "It would just be the repairs of the house. I'm not sure what monetary damages there would be other than a months loss of rent and if we need to put $400.00 on top of repairing the house I'm sure we could get that done." I don't want to see the City lose any more money than necessary to lawsuits; but, I don't want this kind of representation - at least not in the press!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-12T00:34:42-06:00

ID

66938

Comment

Ray, I read your thoughtful comments on this site with interest and think you add a lot to the public discourse on matters of public interest and concern. However, I find myself taking issue with you on what may be misplaced support for Pieter out of personal friendships and loyalty, rather than perhaps what someone not so emotionally involved might do. I am shocked by Pieter's public comments. While I know he is representing a bad actor client, it appears to this layperson that: (1) he is just flaunting the gag order in a direct attempt to taint any jurors out there that might presently be swayed by the Melton cult, (2) he is bordering on ethical violations himself with respect to whether or not he should be representing Frank and company AT ALL, because of a classic, inherent conflict of interest between the interests of the City and its taxpayers (that would be me) and that of Melton and gang. Why is the City Attorney's office (through Pieter) even allowed to represent Melton and the cops in this case at all. It is ABSOLUTELY clear that those guys were acting outside the scope of their employment and authority and were actiing as individuals. The indictment against the guys is proof of that. I think that the city attorney (and the city council for that matter) has dropped the ball by not requiring that the mayor and bodyguards to get their own lawyers at their own cost and not on the taxpayer's dime. That's what would happen under any other circumstances. I would think that any attorney, even though hired and paid by the city, would recognize the inherent and obvious conflict of interest and refuse to represent melton and gang. If he is simply being ordered by boss-Sarah to take that position, it does NOT excuse him from exercising his ethical duties to his profession to refuse to accept an unethical assignment and/or to resign from his city paid job. Likewise, the fact that Sarah works directly for Frank Melton under our city's rules, does NOT exempt her from following the rules of conduct required of ALL lawyers. She is still representing a public body, which has greater ethical constraints dealing with conflicts of interest that with private clients. Where is the judge on this issue; why doesn't she direct the lawyers to "do right." Where is Dennis Sweet? Is he not objecting because he thinks he can get a better settlement out of Pieter than out of another lawyers? Where's the bar association leadership. I thought they were officers of the court too? I'd like to hear from some of you smart lawyers out there if my analysis is totally flawed. Please let me know if i am other-thinking this issue or worrying too much about something not important. Help?

Author

FriendsofJackson

Date

2006-10-12T09:40:07-06:00

ID

66939

Comment

Friends, since I stirred this pot to begin with, let me answer your post. Melton and the bodyguards have personal outside representation in the criminal charges against them. Of course how Recio and Marcus have the money to afford their counsel is beyond me! Must be the overtime! Pieter is representing the City against the civil lawsuits for the same incident. However, this is why the gag order is extremely important because it is hard to distinguish between the two cases. (Am I on the right track here Ray? Maybe the "drug house" term is for both cases?) It appears to me that when Pieter makes these public statements that he is attempting to sway public opinion on the behalf of Melton. Why does he need to be so outspoken when it is clear both sides want to settle out of court? Hmmm....?

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-12T10:31:03-06:00

ID

66940

Comment

Friends and Pike, y'all raise interesting and powerful points. Before I understood the nature and duties of government lawyers I wondered the same thing many times as it regarded their zealous representation of obviously and baltantly wrong state or government officials or entities. They believe it's their duty to save those entities regardless otherwise the floodgates will be open to everyone. They want everyone to know it's not easy taking on the guvment. I'm certainly trying not to be bias in favor of my college comrades or friends. I do know them though and occasionally know what they really feel despite their job duties. Lawyers often have to do strange things to prevail in their causes. I have personally had people call me crooked when all I was doing was taking advantage of the only loopholes I saw in the case.i.e trying to win the only way I thought I could. I don't blame the public for criticizing us. You take advantage of the loopholes or get blamed by the appellate lawyers and courts for being ineffective, dumb, and stupid. That talking to the press thing by Pieter surprised me too. Pieter wasn't subject to the gag order was he? Dennis is dutifully trying to help Dennis and his client, not the city or anyone else. I think Pieter did it out of frustration of not being able to resolve the matter within or without the hearing. There is no real hate between Dennis and Pieter. This is a mere lawyer battle. Dennis isn't going away easily or cheaply and will break the city's neck if he can. Pieter knows this and doesn't plan to be the lawyer or victim that Dennis achieves this through. Maybe Pieter did try to wrongly infect the public, if he did, it would surprise me under these circumstances. There is no conflict problem for Pieter representing the city in this way. His duty is to the city not Melton or the public domain. I bet he would quit if asked to do something he knew was really unethical.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-10-12T11:52:45-06:00