Jackson Free Press

This story will appear in the print edition on Nov. 1.

In the game of legal chess that recent indictments of Mayor Frank Melton have become, District Attorney Faye Peterson fired bombshells back at Melton and his attorney Dale Danks Tuesday, revealing that Melton and Danks had, in fact, negotiated the mayor's own plea deal with her weeks ago, before later reneging on the deal.

The revelation comes in response to a motion Danks filed (PDF, 2.1 MB) last Friday asking Circuit Court Judge Tomie Green to drop all criminal charges against Melton and disqualify District Attorney Faye Peterson from the case because she had allegedly talked directly with one of Melton's bodyguards and offered him a deal in exchange for testifying against the mayor.

Danks' motion was based on an affidavit from Jackson Police Department Det. Marcus Wright, who is under indictment on numerous felony charges with Melton and Det. Michael Recio for the destruction of a duplex at 1305 Ridgeway St. on Aug. 26.

In the Halloween motions, Peterson also claimed Danks' motion was a sneaky way to get around Green's gag order in the case, and that Danks does not have standing on behalf of Wright—being that he is not, nor has ever been Wright's attorney.

In his affidavit, Wright asserts that on the day he was indicted, Sept. 15, he spoke with a "good friend" named Kristi Moore who is friends with former Upper Level attorney Edna Stringer. Stringer then spoke to Peterson about Wright's interest in speaking with her. On Sept. 16, Wright called Peterson on her cell phone, using the number Stringer gave him, and had a 13-minute conversation about the charges against him.

According to Wright, Peterson told him that he was in trouble, but "you can get out of yours." She directed Wright to speak to the FBI, he said. When Wright asked what kind of timeline he had to call the FBI, Peterson said "now," according to Wright. Wright asserts that Peterson told him she was about to leave town and that "no one would know about their discussion or what was discussed." When he met with the FBI, Wright was allegedly told that "they did not want (him) or Recio; they wanted Frank (Melton) and what I could tell them about corruption." Wright told them he was not aware of any "corruption."

Danks argues that Mississippi law makes it a crime for a prosecutor to communicate with defendants, citing Mississippi Code §97-11-3, a law that has been on the books since at least 1930. Danks also cites Balfour v. State to argue that Peterson's conversation with Wright violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In essence, Danks is arguing that it was illegal for Peterson to speak to Wright without the presence of his attorney. He even goes so far as to call it "troubling" that Peterson might offer Wright leniency for testifying against Melton, claiming that "to selectively prosecute crimes violated the Fourteenth Amendment," though it is not at all unusual for prosecutors to offer deals to witnesses who testify for the state.

In the D.A.'s response Tuesday (PDF, 544 KB), Senior Assistant D.A. Stanley Alexander not only disputes both the details of her conversation with Wright and Danks' legal argument, but he calls on Green to sanction Danks for filing a motion containing documents that are "irrelevant, misleading and inadmissible" and that violate the gag order Green imposed on both sides in the case.

Peterson denies telling Wright that he could get out of his charges or that she told Wright to call the FBI "now." More importantly, Peterson points out that Wright called her on the advice of Stringer, and he did not yet have his own attorney at the time. Peterson claims she advised him to get an attorney before he spoke to the FBI. She denies that she "consulted, advised, counseled or defended" Wright.

The district attorney rejects Danks' interpretation of the law, along with the allegation from Danks that she is selectively prosecuting crimes. Alexander points out that "shortly after his indictment, Defendant Melton, through his attorney Dale Danks, spoke with District Attorney Faye Peterson and negotiated a plea bargain before later deciding to renege."

Perhaps the most important part of the D.A.'s argument is that Melton, through Danks, does not even have standing to bring the motion. After all, Wright later obtained Robert Smith, not Dale Danks, to represent him—and Smith apparently played no part in filing this motion, which is signed by Danks.

Mississippi College of Law professor Matt Steffey says that standing might be crucial: "The basic point about standing is that if the government comes and illegally searches my neighbor's house and finds evidence against me, and I say, 'Wait a minute, that's an illegal search of my neighbor's files,' my neighbor has the legal right or standing to complain about the illegal search. I don't. I don't have the right to complain about the violation of somebody else's rights."

The district attorney's call for sanctions (PDF, 384 KB) is the second filed against an attorney for the defense for violating Green's gag order. The first, which was filed on Oct. 9, concerned a press conference organized by city employees protesting Melton's indictments, supposedly to announce the addition of Houston attorney Craig T. Washington to Melton's defense team. Green has yet to rule on that motion.

In the latest motion, filed Oct. 31, Assistant D.A. Dewey Arthur contends that Danks leaked his motion to The Clarion-Ledger in a deliberate attempt to sway public opinion. Arthur writes that the state was "unaware of the motion until contacted by reporters for The Clarion Ledger." Because neither the circuit clerk or the D.A.'s office informed the media about the motion, Arthur concludes that "Defendant's counsel is the only party that could have informed the media of the filing of this motion."

For the record, the JFP acquired all motions from the circuit clerk, with whom we have near-daily communication.

It is unknown when Green will rule on these motions.

Previous Comments

ID

124184

Comment

Whee. Danks is turning out to be a real sleazeball. Figures.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-01T00:43:25-06:00

ID

124185

Comment

Fitting that Roman Polanski's "Knife in the Water" is on IFC right now. As one reviewer points out, "In Polanski's feature debut, "Knife in the Water," strange power games were again to the fore, with ridiculous macho rivalries arising when a young looking man hitches a lift with a sportswriter and his attractive wife… "

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-01T02:06:37-06:00

ID

124186

Comment

WHy is Matt Steffey always quoted as an expert? He was a con law and admiralty law professor for years at MC. He teaches criminal law classes at the school now because they needed someone to teach them. He never worked as a prosecutor and didn't handle criminal cases as a lawyer. He has been nothing but an academic. The professor who used to be quoted in alot of media stories at MC had a similar background. Judy Johnson was a labor lawyer and got stuck teaching criminal procedure and criminal law at MC Law. Those two professors are not experts in criminal law at all. Patricia Bennett was the only professor they had with criminal law experience but since she used to be, and may still be, a part time prosecutor, she might not be able to comment.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-01T09:14:15-06:00

ID

124187

Comment

Excellent job Brian. So interesting! I could see Frank looked very scared and overwhelmed after the indictment, for a little while. Peterson's office seems to be doing a good job responding to desperate measures from the defense. They still have to face Mr. Washington (Johnny) at trial though. Danks (Shapira) is doing what he's supposed to do. It would be nice if this case could be resolved without a trial.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-01T09:55:57-06:00

ID

124188

Comment

King, Steffey is very explicit about the fact that he is not an expert on criminal law, which is one reason why he was very hesitant to comment on this dustup beyond his rather elementary explanation of standing. You might be surprised (or maybe not) at how hard it is to get local lawyers to comment on these proceedings on the record.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-01T10:32:27-06:00

ID

124189

Comment

I'm not surprised at all Mr B. The CL quotes him heavily as well so my comment was more general, not directed at you per se. They quoted Professor Judy Johnson as well when she had no experience in criminal law at all. What MC does is when they need a professor for criminal law class, they will throw a professor already on staff to the wolves and assign him/her that class, expertise not required. All the professor knows is from any limited knowledge he may have already and what he learns from reading casebook, etc. Patricia Bennet had expertise but as she is a part time prosecutor, or used to be one, I don't know if she still is, she probably is reluctant to be quoted. Kirksey has taught there as well but he probably would not want to be quoted either.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-01T11:00:22-06:00

ID

124190

Comment

All right kids, we've got the motion PDFs up and ready for your viewing pleasure.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-01T11:43:52-06:00

ID

124191

Comment

Matt Steffey is more qualified to comment on criminal law than many people, Kingfish, seeing as he is both a licensed lawyer and professor of law. He has taught criminal law, constitutional law and a host of other legal topics. I would say he knows what he is talking about, so until you, Kingfish, pass the bar and start teaching law, I think Steffey is a good choice to consult.

Author

E

Date

2006-11-01T11:44:37-06:00

ID

124192

Comment

I know we have some lawyers out there, so maybe you can help the rest of us understand the more obscure points of these motions. The standing issue seems like a no-brainer, though Green could always decide that Danks does have standing because Peterson's "actions," which are hotly contested, harmed Melton. Still, that seems like an uphill battle. It is also obvious that Danks' argument that Peterson is violating Melton's 14th Amendment rights by "selectively prosecuting" crimes is frivolous, particularly in light of the fact that Danks and Melton tried to strike a deal too before backing out of it. But what about §97-11-3? A source who would not comment on the record told me that the application of that law to this matter is shaky because it was designed to prevent conflicts of interest back when D.A.'s were part-time and kept private practices. (Remember that the law dates from at least 1930.) The same source also said that Balfour v. State does not apply. Can anyone help to illuminate these arcane points of law?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-01T12:13:17-06:00

ID

124193

Comment

Brian, I have one comment about the article: More importantly, Peterson points out that Wright called her on the advice of Stringer, and he did not yet have his own attorney at the time. Peterson claims she advised him to get an attorney before he spoke to the FBI. She denies that she “consulted, advised, counseled or defended” Wright. See how the word advised was used? You may want to be cautious about your word usage. People will eat you alive based on that alone. You know how it is.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-11-01T12:37:14-06:00

ID

124194

Comment

E: I was one of his students. I think I know what I am talking about.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-01T13:02:35-06:00

ID

124195

Comment

This law stuff is hard and requires precision. It seems to me that the constitutional and criminal law teacher has a good grasp of the issues. Brian question calls for knowledge of both. Although I prefer to be a comedian on my spare time, Balfour usually refers to situations where a defendant confessed after invoking his right to an attorney. A confession or statement under these circumstances violates right to councel and due process or fairness. Any such statement or confession would likely be suppressed and deemed inadmissible. Danks may also be arguing Melton isn't being treated equally as other citizens are, too. Case also can stand for more than one argument or proposition. I see all of this as acts of desperation to try and win without a trial. You can't blame the lawyer for trying. I hadn't even heard of 97-11-3 until the creative and researching genius Mr. Danks brought it up. If Wright had no lawyer, how could Peterson go through his lawyer, and how did she intentionally violate any laws when she didn't call him. He called her if I'm reading correctly. Most of the prosecutors I know would have acted similarly if the defendant initiated the contact and hadn't obtained counsel. The fact that a plea negotiation was ongoing was likely the catalyst for this questionable but probably legal action. Danks is also creating potential matter of appeal in case Melton loses. I would argue that what she did wasn't counseling but I would be surprised if I won.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-01T13:27:42-06:00

ID

124196

Comment

Looks like the Ledge got hold of Peterson's motions today and posted something online. (smile)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-01T13:40:40-06:00

ID

124197

Comment

Am I the only one who thinks that it's remarkable that Danks is filing this on behalf of Wright? Sounds a bit like he's the lead attorney on all those cases—which is interesting in light of the fact that the bodyguards should be able to make decisions and plea separately from Melton.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-01T13:42:24-06:00

ID

124198

Comment

Interesting that the Ledger hasn't put the PDFs up of the motions, btw. Wonder if it's because it talks about them?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-01T13:48:56-06:00

ID

124199

Comment

Anyone else curious about the part where Danks' motion reveals that the feds seem to be investigating Melton for "corruption"? That's a new wrinkle.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-01T13:53:38-06:00

ID

124200

Comment

Who is the money man though? I'd be shocked to learn Danks has standing to file this motion. Those fellow are riding together even if on different streets and different cars. Peterson should know it by now. Otherwise, Wright would have likely given in. Robert Smith will stand his ground but go along on harmless matters that could benefit all.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-01T13:54:42-06:00

ID

124201

Comment

I see your point, L.W., but advising someone to get an attorney is not the sort of advising in question here.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-01T13:55:26-06:00

ID

124202

Comment

Ray, the whole legal world here seems so incestuous that I can't keep up. If you recall, I reported back in April that Melton had invited one of the Wood Street Players attorneys to his home the night before that trial began. Now, I will say that the attorney—Robert Smith—seemed absolutely befuddled as to why he was there—with Melton, Chief Anderson, Sandifer, Recio, Wright, me, Jaro, the kids who live in the house, the dog Abby and even Chrisopher Walker (whom Wood Street attorneys were trying to keep from testifying against the Donelsons and Benton). Even Cedric Willis (recently exonerated) and his preacher came through that night, looking puzzled as to why Melton had invited them. It was a busy night on Carter's Grove, to say the least. ;-) And that was before we took off in the big RV for a night of crime-fighting! Seriously, Smith told me later that he had no idea why he was there, and that certainly seem true that night. I have no reason to doubt him, and I believe he's a good man. But the whole criminal-attorney universe still makes me a bit dizzy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-01T14:03:16-06:00

ID

124203

Comment

Regarding Cedric Willis' presence at Melton's house, I think I should add that he was very angry at the friend who brought him there. He said that he wanted nothing to do with Melton because his top priority was staying away from trouble. Is that ironic or just sad?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-01T14:11:06-06:00

ID

124204

Comment

Donna, I understand. That's why the man entering an elevator with only 2 bullets and upon seeing a lawyer, alligator, and bear decided to use both bullets on the lawyer and take his chances with the bear and alligator. A lawyer can walk a fine line and not do anything illegal or unethical. Robert will do the right thing.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-01T14:29:04-06:00

ID

124205

Comment

Well, Brian, that was certainly his demeanor that night. He seemed flustered at being there. I think I have all that on tape somewhere. And Ray, I've said it before I like and respect Robert. And he seemed about as flustered as Cedric at that whole spectacle that night. I don't know if Melton was trying to put on a show for me by inviting all these folks, or if it was just a typical Sunday night, pre-raid shindig. It was a remarkable experience, really.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-01T14:31:54-06:00

ID

124206

Comment

From what I have read, it appears that Wright has "friends" who were willing to offer some advice before he got a lawyer. However, when your friends are lawyers why shouldn't we believe that Moore and Stringer didn't have Wright call Peterson just so this type of "claim" could be used against her if needed. Considering that Melton and members of his clique (including a gang youth) have gone out of their way to insult and impugn Faye Peterson in the press, it is hard to believe Wright over Faye when you read both claims. Since it is pretty clear that Danks (or someone close to him) leaked this to the press, the question is why? I think it was solely to get this statement out in the press: ” When he met with the FBI, Wright was allegedly told that “they did not want (him) or Recio; they wanted Frank (Melton) and what I could tell them about corruption.” Wright told them he was not aware of any “corruption.” Funny, violating someone’s civil rights is not "corruption" as it is used by Wright. As if the FBI is investigating Melton for Contract fraud a la Bill Campbell or something. Then again maybe they are? Again, the defense is trying to cast confusion about the case to the public. I guess now that the FBI is investigating Melton we will see a headline in a week or two that reads, "Melton fires Robert Walker, hires ex-FBI agent Philip McDonald as City Administrator for $150,000 a year" Then... In other news, "FBI - No Corruption in Melton Administration"

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-02T10:15:59-06:00

ID

124207

Comment

Yes, Pike, but how does it help Melton for the public to know that the FBI is investigating him for "corruption"? It seems like they could work against them. I mean, there are rumors everywhere that federal indictments may be on the way. The feds won't confirm it, of course, not should they. ;-) Funny ending there. You'd think the current agency would be bending over backward to show that they aren't in cahoots with Melton, what with the history of him hiring away their top man to work for him when he was under suspicion in the 1990s.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-02T11:12:03-06:00

ID

124208

Comment

Y'all notice the lead story in the Ledger today—two days after we put this up? It does lead one to wonder how they're getting their copies of the motions, eh?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-02T11:16:21-06:00

ID

124209

Comment

Didn't I read Wright and Receio tried negotiating a plea too? I'm shocked.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-11-02T11:28:30-06:00

ID

124210

Comment

Yeah, the Ledge is a day late and a dollar short! No, it wouldn't necessarily help Melton to let the public know that he is being investigated by the FBI. But, I feel that by Wright saying he didn't know of any corruption, Melton is being proactive in letting the public know that one of his closest bodyguards does't feel Melton was engaged in corruption. Enough so, that Wright told the FBI he didn't know of any corruption by Melton. So vague though... Doesn't mean it is true, and it could backfire. Yet again, Melton gets another seed of doubt into the press. Very interesting that they have all considered a plea. If that is the case, I bet that they have many contradictions in each account of the events.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-02T15:13:04-06:00

ID

124211

Comment

I see your point, but why *would* Wright know about "corruption"? Breaking and entering, perhaps, or carrying weapons into schools—but why corruption? See my point?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-02T15:29:43-06:00

ID

124212

Comment

That is the weird thing about it. "Why" would he know about corruption by Melton? The usage of the word is very vague, and seems ill placed in the situation as you describe. As you point out, we don't know what the FBI is investigating. Then Danks puts out this stuff mentioning Wright saying he hasn't seen any "corruption" on Melton's part. Are the Fed's investigating contracts Melton has let, the use of City property to conduct crimes (that may apply), Crime Reporting, or financial issues? That would be "corruption" to me. So, why Danks wanted this in the press is odd as your mention. One would guess that the FBI would be interested in the Civil Rights violations angle for Ridgeway and Upper Level (which has gotten real quiet). If the FBI is investigating "corruption" by Melton's administration then he and City are in for a heap of trouble that could pale in comparison to Ridgeway. I'm a little off my game lately, so some of what I'm writing doesn't even make sense to me. I'm just floating some ideas.... However, I do think that the two lawyers and Wright may have tried to set Faye up with that phone call knowing full well that "if" Faye "advised" Wright they may be able to catch her in a snafu. However, I doubt she would risk the case like that; and I believe that she told him to get an attorney to address the charges/pleas/investigations as necessary. Wonder if Wright was getting paid while he was eating at the Olive Garden?

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-11-02T16:05:03-06:00

ID

124213

Comment

I must be in the dark. My understanding is that Frank has been under investigation by the FBI from the get-go regarding his illegal commercial flight with a gun, and his impersonating a police officer in the US Capitol. "Word on-the-street" is that Bennie Thompson is out to get Frank and that Bennie wants to place a few of his friends in the highest positions in the TSA at the airport. The TSA investigation regarding the "Frank incidence" and other security problems has been reinitiated by the Homeland Security's Inspector General at Bennie's urging/insistence. There are other highly-positioned folks remaining at Jackson's TSA under investigation by the feds. At least one has been called to testify in Washington under oath twice in the last month, and warned that to lie would constitute perjury. I think that Bennie and the feds want Melton, and will squeeze others to get him. HDMatthias, MD

Author

HDMatthias, MD

Date

2006-11-03T00:57:53-06:00

ID

124214

Comment

At this point I just want someone to get him out of our city business. I wonder what reason bennie would want FM out?? Some rumors are just that rumors some started by FM/ I remember he accused BT of setting him up when he got busted about the badge or whatever in DC. Let's pray that his advisors convinve him to go back to Texas and" practice law enforcement"

Author

jada

Date

2006-11-04T18:25:38-06:00

ID

124215

Comment

Well, I do know that "blame Bennie" is literally one of the talking points for the Melton camp. So I would treat any of those rumors with high degrees of skepticism. I find it hard to believe because it's hard to get Thompson's office to return phone calls about anything—and they have done nothing, nada, to try to fuel the Melton fires in the media that we've seen. They reacted correctly -- with shock -- when they feared he'd illegally carried a weapon into federal offices in D.C. But, otherwise, I think that's largely hype designed to try to throw red meat to the Melton base in Northeast Jackson (many of whom start frothing at the mouth at any mention of Thompson). So careful about being played. I think it's clear the Melton camp is desperate to blame someone else, anyone else for the mayor's problems.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-04T20:56:08-06:00

ID

124216

Comment

Well gang, it was not a rumor but a fact that Melton was charged with sexual abuse of two minors who were mysteriously "killed in the line of drug duty." So why is it so hard to believe that corruption is anything other than just that - CORRUPTION? I have always wondered why the NAACP, SCLC or other organizations involved in the Civil Rights of others didn't get involved. The reason was simple according to several people who were close to the case: Those two young boys were poor and the people involved were powerful! "All of the Witnesses are Dead." What a mess! Jimmy Wilson, Police Chief under Kane Ditto, had many of the pieces of this puzzle. Where are those puzzle pieces? I know Bennie and Frank playing games at the Airport with guns is a BIG NO NO. Bennie does not like Shi$ and he doesn't play any when it comes to protecting the integrity of his position. Frank has exemplified such a disrespect and a disregard for any and all things associated with anyone who tries to walk the straight and narrow.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-11-06T14:26:50-06:00

ID

124217

Comment

Actually, he was not "charged" with that. Some police officers suspected him of it. Important distinction.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-06T14:41:02-06:00