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 Commentsshow
What's this?More like this story
More stories by this author
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.