Jackson Free Press

Read JFP Melton Blog & Archive Here

Former Mayor Dale Danks, who is an attorney for Mayor Frank Melton, filed a subpoena today ordering District Attorney Faye Peterson to appear before Judge Joe Webster at 9:30 a.m. on April 13.

Webster will conduct "motion hearings" at that time, according to a statement from the court. Those hearings were originally scheduled for April 17.

In other subpoenas filed today, Danks called FBI agent Phillip McDonald, Jackson attorney Edna Stringer and Kristi Moore, who are also ordered to appear April 13.

Meanwhile, the DA's office filed subpoenas for Jackson Police Department officers Quincy Russell and Jessie Tatum to appear at Melton's April 23 felony trial. Russell was the officer who arrested Evans Welch Aug. 26, 2006, according to court documents. Melton and detectives Michael Recio and Marcus Wright face five felony counts for the demolition of a house at 1305 Ridgeway Street that night.

Also, in a motion filed April 9, the DA's office filed a subpoena with Dennis Smith of WLBT demanding a copy of video footage that "show the defendant, Frank Melton, along with several youth using sledge hammers to demolish a house in Jackson, Miss."

See a PDF of all these documents here (PDF, 182 KB).

Danks' subpoenas are likely part of an effort to accuse Peterson of "prosecutorial misconduct" as part of Melton's defense. In a motion filed Oct. 27, 2006, Danks asked the court to dismiss all charges (PDF, 2.1 MB) against Melton, along with detectives Michael Recio and Marcus Wright, because of alleged misconduct by Peterson.

In an affidavit attached to that motion, Wright said that on the day he was indicted, Sept. 15, 2006, 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."

In a response filed Oct. 31, 2006, (PDF, 544 KB), Senior Assistant D.A. Stanley Alexander disputed both the details of Peterson's conversation with Wright and Danks' legal argument. He also called on Green to sanction Danks for filing a motion containing documents that were "irrelevant, misleading and inadmissible" and that violated the gag order Judge Tomie Green imposed on both sides in the case.

In that motion, Peterson denied telling Wright that he could get out of his charges or that she told Wright to call the FBI "now." More importantly, Peterson pointed 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 denied that she "consulted, advised, counseled or defended" Wright, which was the crux of Danks' argument against her.

Following those motions, Green ordered that all subsequent motions be filed with her office before the clerk's office so she could determine whether they violated a gag order she imposed on the case.

On March 8, 2007, the Mississippi Supreme Court removed Green from the case. When no other judge in Hinds County would take the case, the supreme court assigned it to retired Cohoama County Judge Joe Webster.

This story has been corrected since it was first posted.

Previous Commentsshow

The subpoena of Peterson must hark back to this controversy. I think all this reeks of trying to spook the prosecutor's office into allowing him to plea. I smell mega-posturing here. But I guess that is to be expected. I'm still struck by the fact that the defense's best witness, so far, seems to be the crack addict who couldn't remember what the duplex looked like. And by the way, Quincy Russell was apparently part of the entourage who went with Melton. That name came up in our initial investigation. I don't know for sure about Jessie Tatum. I wonder if Michael Taylor will be called.

DonnaLadd

Apr 11 2007

If the Melton team is so upset about Peterson taking Wright's call (being that he reached out to her, apparently), why aren't they talking about their own attempts to negotiate a plea with her for Melton early on? This all seems so desperate—but if the judge is a good ole boy like those on the Mississippi Supreme Court, who knows?

DonnaLadd

Apr 11 2007

Someone is lying. Either Faye or Wright.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Danks is walking a fine line on this one. Obviously these are just trial tactics so he can potentially get a better deal, but the problem is in the fact of a lie. If that comes out, it could be very bad for his side. Also, the same is true for Faye. If she is lying she could get burned on this one.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

If it isn't recorded, isn't it one person against the other? And it strikes me who would be more credible in that particular stand-off. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Apr 11 2007

It does look like Danks is ready to accuse anyone—especially powerful black women—of anything to get his man off, doesn't it? Attorneys, doesn't it matter that Wright didn't have an attorney at the time and used STringer as the go-between? And how is this different from Melton and Danks trying to make a deal with Peterson?

DonnaLadd

Apr 11 2007

It doesn't really matter if it was recorded or not. Perjury is going to come in when something is alleged written or spoken under oath.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Therefore if in a hearing Faye says she didn't do it and it is shown that she is likely lying and the judge buys it, this can be perjury. Same for Wright.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Like in all politics and law, its the lie that gets you.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Also, MS Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client Like I said above, someone could get burned bad on these trial tactics.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Keep in mind the prosecutions main witness is a schizophrennic who may have been off of his medication. He will likely be just as credible as the lookout.

Kingfish

Apr 11 2007

I agree. Impeachment of these witnesses will be key.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

its a dog of a case. you're two witnesses for each side are going to have problems being believed that they actually know what the truth is.

Kingfish

Apr 11 2007

I see all that, Alum, but my point is: How would you show that she is "likely lying" if no one else heard it and they didn't have a recording of it? It sounds like minor tweaks in the way the conversation transpired makes a big difference. They've clearly shaped Wright's version to make her look bad. But how can they prove it (without witnesses or tape)? Also per Welch, I'm not sure he is the main witness. I know there were lots of eyewitnesses and, apparently, some cell-phone video or the like. Not to mention folks like the officers who were with Melton. Would they lie for him under oath? My biggest problem here is that I don't understand what defense there is if they admit doing it. I can see trying to sway the jury with stories about crack-cooking and what-not, but it's hard to believe a judge would let in anything that isn't actually a defense of the crime. I mean, it'll turn into a circus if he doesn't keep it focused on the actual crime and actual defenses of the crime, right? It seems to me that a defense would be: 1. Evidence that he didn't do it. 2. Can't think of anything else. And it's not like it was only the D.A.'s office that investigated Ridgeway. The AG's office did, too.

DonnaLadd

Apr 11 2007

Well, cellphone records are a record. If it is shown that Faye was on the phone with Wright, from each of their respective cellphones (which those records can be obtained) then someone IS lying. Just because no one overhears two people talking to each other on a phone line, clearly does not mean there is no record of it. In today's world, there is always some kind of record. But I understand what your saying, ladd.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Not really, King. If the videotape does show Melton et al. smashing up the house, then there's no question about what is true. Credibility of witnesses may play some role in determining whether Evans Welch is a drug dealer. That shouldn't have any bearing on the outcome, but Melton's defense strategy, from the beginning, has appeared to be jury nullification.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 11 2007

Also, FYI: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

No, Ole Miss. No one has denied that Peterson spoke to Wright. It's the content of that conversation that is contested.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 11 2007

Oh ok.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Right, Alum, but you're still not bringing it home. She doesn't *deny* that she talked to him. (See our earlier story linked above.) So cell phone records won't matter on that point. This brings up back to my original point: If there is only evidence that they talked to each other, then they cancel each other out, and it seems hard to prove who is lying. In that case, do you believe the prosecutor or the accused felon? It seems unlikely that the accused would win that one by default. Now, if there is something legally wrong with what she admitted to doing, I can see that being a different story. But I haven't seen that argument made anywhere, yet.

DonnaLadd

Apr 11 2007

just talking about the witnesses, not any hard or photographic evidence.

Kingfish

Apr 11 2007

Well the other side of this story is the discretionary power of the judge in a heated action like this. If people start testifying in a hearing on these motions, then the judge will decide who he believes, and who he doesn't.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Yep, I would think that the judge is of utmost importance in this case. If Danks has him as wrapped as he seemed to have most of the Supreme Court justices, who knows what will happen? So, does the Court plan to just let Green's, and the AG's support, motions go unanswered??? This state.

DonnaLadd

Apr 11 2007

I'll take the optimist view. Justice will be done and the corrupt will fall. I have faith in the Great State.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

OMA: You're not from around here, huh? I'm betting on dismissal in 30 minutes after starting.

Ironghost

Apr 11 2007

I want to go watch...

LawClerk

Apr 11 2007

Heh, you have confidence in this state that just convicted a couple of judges of bribery, where an attorney was just convicted of conspiracy, and a supreme court that hides in the shadows and won't issue explanations for its rulings? I was naive once also :P

GLewis

Apr 11 2007

As I recall, Alexander questioned whether or not Melton had standing to even object to the phone call between Wright and Peterson. Ofcourse Wright would have standing, but I don't think Robert Smith would want to put Wright on the stand and expose him to cross-examination and the danger of incriminating himself. It sounds like the Melton team is worried that during the conversation between Wright and Peterson, Wright may have said something incriminating about the mayor. I agree that this is all posturing by the defense in hopes to influence the jury pool or to get a plea offer.

thetruth

Apr 11 2007

By the way, I noticed that the CL neglected to report that the State had subpoenaed a WLBT news report regarding the Mayor and his use sledge hammers. I wonder why they didn't mention that?

thetruth

Apr 11 2007

Speaking of plea bargaining, is it reasonable to hope for a plea which might include Melton's resignation? Then he could take his merry band of children back to Texas forever. Is this too easy? Thoughts anyone?

tombarnes

Apr 11 2007

I don't think I'm naive. I'm a life long resident of the Great State of Mississippi and my family can trace its roots to pre-statehood. I believe in the fact that despite the failings of Mississippi there are great things going on. Also, GL for the two judges and one attorney that you are speaking about, being convicted of crimes, there are hundreds of honest ones here in this state doing a wonderful job.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

I'm glad you can have faith. I don't see any trace of justice so far. I see defense lawyers making a mockery of justice and the truth. Oh, and my ancestors predate Mississippi and America's founding. :D

Ironghost

Apr 11 2007

Everyone's ancestors predate Mississippi and America's founding. I was making a point that I am life long Mississippi and so is my family.

Ole Miss Alum

Apr 11 2007

Oh Foo. You're one of those that doesn't understand jokes. Yergh. Sorry. I'll abstain.

Ironghost

Apr 11 2007

I personally believe (unless someone taped the conversation) that the cell phone records will only show that the two phones were connected and for how long they were connected. The records will NOT show who, if anyone, was on each phone nor will they reflect what transpired. We assume the parties who have made statements about "their" conversation were the two talking but the records do not prove this. Likewise, the duplex owner claims that Melton called her, but phone records will not prove this. He could have used another phone or someone else could have called.

ChrisCavanaugh

Apr 11 2007

Speaking of plea bargaining, is it reasonable to hope for a plea which might include Melton's resignation? Then he could take his merry band of children back to Texas forever. Is this too easy? Thoughts anyone? - Tombarnes I highly doubt Faye will go for a plea at this stage in the game. We all were witness to the last trial of Melton, when he took a plea to shield himself from perjury, but I don't think a plea is going to be offered on this one. Melton and his team have impugned Faye as a person and she needs to not plead it out, but to try it in front of a jury of Melton's peers. I think this is the only way. That being said, however, I'm all for him to go back home and leave Jackson to more (or, at the least!) capable hands. I can't wait to see this video! lc

LawClerk

Apr 11 2007

There is an important omission in Goliath's story on this that borders on outright distortion. Joyner writes: The motion cites a state law prohibiting prosecutors from contacting a defendant to "consult, advise, counsel or defend" anyone charged with a crime. This is in regard to Danks' motion to drop charges against Melton et al. because Peterson allegedly engaged in misconduct. What the law he's writing about is getting at is that a prosecutor should not get into the position of representing the state and offering legal advice to a defendant, for obvious reasons. The critical omission in the Clarion-Ledger's story is that Wright did not have his own counsel at the time. According to Peterson, the first thing she told him to do was get an attorney. She denies that she offered him legal advice of any kind, except to say, if you want to plea--and remember that it was Wright who called her, by everyone's admission--then get yourself a lawyer and talk to the FBI. If what Peterson said is true, then it does not seem that she violated the statute. If what Wright said is true, then it would seem that she did. He said / she said, as some commented above. But look at Joyner's half-ass version of her side: Peterson did not return a call seeking comment, but at the time Danks filed the motion last fall, she dismissed the accusation. "The motion said I contacted a defendant?" she said. "And the point is what? That's so crazy." That's it. He offers no other explanation of how or why she "dismissed" the accusation. If you just read this story, your impression would be that Peterson's response is: "So? So what?" In that, Joyner is failing his readership. The Clarion-Ledger. Miss a day. Thank your lucky stars.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

Its Joyner, what do you expect?

Kingfish

Apr 12 2007

Doesn't matter, the fix is in. I think the fact that Judge Webster has moved the Peterson/Danks motion to Friday from this past Tuesday says that he is going to throw it all out, if he can? It says in the article that he wanted to hold it Tuesday to give each legal team time to prepare for next week based on his decision. Now that he moved it to Friday, why did he drop the concern that each legal team will need time to prepare based on his ruling? This is the quick and easy out the Judge needs and will prevent any of the story getting out in the press. Danks followed that with a motion denying Melton agreed to a plea bargain and asked that Peterson be removed from prosecuting the case for violating a court-imposed gag order and for prosecutorial misconduct. Courts spokeswoman Beverly Kraft said the motions hearing originally was scheduled for Tuesday. "He (Webster) moved up the date of the hearing to give himself more time to prepare a ruling and to give the attorneys more time to prepare their cases based on whatever ruling he makes," she said. I'm sure that Haley, and MSSC have some convoluted notion that they need to "protect" Mississippi's image because once it goes to trial it goes national for sure. And, it makes no difference that Haley fired Melton. All of Haley's people around him, especially Neely and Haley donors, supported Melton full tilt! If Haley truly thinks Melton is a blight on Jackson and MS, he would have stepped in and made comments about it by now. Some of his people would have come out against Melton publicly by now. But, the State (except Jim Hood) and Haley's army are strangely silent and standing by their man Melton. It is disgusting to say the least!

pikersam

Apr 12 2007

I think there's a bit of confusion about dates here. Webster moved the hearing from April 17, next Tuesday, to April 13, this Friday. So he gave the attorneys more time, not less. It's also important to note that he is going to be ruling on a whole lotta motions.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

Brian, Is it going to be in open court? Are you all going to have a rep there? I would like firsthand (at least from JFP) and not CL information. I am also under the impression that Peterson is not going to testify. Unless they want her to testify so that she can't prosecute.... hmmmmmm.....

LawClerk

Apr 12 2007

Yes, we'll be there. It is in open court but they are not allowing any cameras. I get the impression that it will not be Peterson actually prosecuting the case anyway.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

Brian, I might show up for a bit :D

LawClerk

Apr 12 2007

I see now Brian. I was posting based on how the Ledge had it written. It seemed the other way around, until I remembered (read in your article) that Melton's case is the 23rd not the 17th. That's where I got lost. Oh well... my bad again... Won't be getting a Citizen Blogger of the Week award anytime soon after my last few posts! I think I'll go pick on Ray and Kingfish to get my game face back on! ;-)

pikersam

Apr 12 2007

By any chance is there going to be anyone testifying on behalf of the prosecution that would explain policy and procedure on how a city/mayor can legally demolish a structure? If I remember correctly, didn't council president Allen say something strange about MDEQ and asbestos recently? I recognize the defense team is actually doing their job in aggressively defending the mayor...and I know the prosecution is aggressively trying to show - through video from WLBT - that he and some of his supporters actually physically demolished the home. So, where is the testimony that these individuals not only did not follow policy and procedure of a department that is overseen by the mayor, they are also not personally certified in demolition? Wouldn't that get this back on track - that the case is about demolition of a home without regards to policy, procedure and certification?

JenniferGriffin

Apr 12 2007

Jennifer, I am sure the prosecution will make just those arguments. There are clearly delineated procedures for demolishing homes. Remember that MDEQ threatened Melton when he improperly demolished homes that had already been legally condemned by City Council. Melton burned down those homes, and he still got in trouble (though not criminal trouble) for that, partly because it seemed the houses still had asbestos in them, so just lighting them on fire to save time and money (as Melton bragged he had done then) was an environmental hazard. Those were houses that had been condemned. This house had an owner who was entitled to the full range of protections for property that the law affords. Of course, the law does allow property seizures in drug cases, but as in all legal matters, the law has ... you know ... a law about that! The law even allows you to knock holes in walls to look for drugs--if you have a warrant to do so. I don't know how the prosecution will spell these things out to the jury, but I'm sure it must be a very basic part of their strategy.

Brian C Johnson

Apr 12 2007

Exactly, Brian. I guess I'm just wanting the prosecution to take on the Mayor's attorneys and be aggressive in whatever public way they can about policy/procedure/property rights, etc. I hope I'm wrong, but based on past actions, I sense this Judge and the MSSC are about to do to the DA what they did to Judge Green. In a previous post someone wrote about law/facts and in their absence, confusion. While the prosecution has responded to the confusion of the Mayors attorneys, I guess I wish they were more aggressive in ways that could be made public - like subpeona's for MDEQ professionals, City of Jackson Code Enforcement Officials, a City Council member who actually helped establish city policy on the topic, and somehow putting in their pretrial filings the actual policy language. You know, aggressive about the issue and not the confusion.

JenniferGriffin

Apr 12 2007