Jackson Free Press

The Mississippi Supreme Court issued an order (PDF, 48 KB) dated April 16 remanding Judge Tomie Green's call for sanctions against former Mayor Dale Danks to Hinds County Circuit Court.

The court decided that the matter required an "evidentiary hearing before a judge other than the one seeking sanctions." At the conclusion of that hearing, the circuit court will have 30 days to submit its findings of fact to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court stayed related motions, including Danks' motion to recuse Green from all future cases involving Mayor Frank Melton and Danks himself, along with other defense attorneys.

Previous Commentsshow

The saga continues ...

DonnaLadd

Apr 19 2007

Danks didn't get a pass on his comments. Now this is very interesting, since Dank's charges will have to be heard by a Hinds County judge, and even if they disapprove of Judge Green, they will have to be very circumspect about letting Danks off light, since that will impact them in the future. I mean, I can see the wheels turning in their heads now....."do we let this guy off light, encouraging more judicial potshots? or slam him hard, discouraging challenges of judicial authority?" Danks may have bitten off more than he can chew, and in my opinion throwing the book at him is justifiable, since he has conducted his Melton defense in a scorched earth manner.

GLewis

Apr 19 2007

well we need to see if all three circuit judges(yerger,kidd.delaughter)recuse,at which point the matter will be kicked back to the supremes for the chief justice to appoint an out of town judge.

chimneyville

Apr 19 2007

For the attorneys out there, is this a routine/normal procedure or response by the MSSC?

JenniferGriffin

Apr 19 2007

I lean towards agreement about the way Danks has handled the case on Melton. On the other hand, I highly doubt that any Hinds County Judge has the guts or nerve to screw with Danks. I am unaware of where people like Danks and Melton and even Raosemary Aultman in Clinton get their power, but it is obviously enough to put fear in people in very high places. Why didn't the federal government go after Melton for fraudulently obtaining a law enforcement gun permit in DC? Why did the state supreme court rule in Meltons favor on the parole violations? Obviously someone has exerted some control. If only we knew who it was and what they have to use as power. It is beginning to look like Melton will skate on all this and more. Too bad for Jackson and even the State of Mississippi. He is beginning to make us all look bad!

kdbstlrfan1

Apr 19 2007

I doubt they'll do more than slap his hand. With a wink.

Ironghost

Apr 19 2007

this is normal procedure. They rarely hold actual trials at the Supreme Court and usually assign them to a judge. This is nothing to worry about.

Kingfish

Apr 20 2007

My question is why would they need an evidentiary hearing when everything is already in the motions? Is someone going to stand up in court and say, "Your honor, as you can see for yourself, Mr. Danks accused Judge Green of larceny right here on page 2." Or is this going to be a way to explore the precedent on it? Anyone have any insights?

Brian C Johnson

Apr 20 2007

They generally have a trial judge adjudicate the hearings on sanctions, which this motion is, then the SC will review the decision and can modify it. That has pretty much been the standard procedure if I am not mistaken. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, Ray, clerk, and Crowley. I doubt it will have anything to do with precedent, its more about just following their standard procedures. You generally don't see evidence, testimony, and exhibits introduced at the Supreme Court level, rather at the trial court, which is probably why they assigned this to a lower court. The Supreme Court is there strictly to review the decision.

Kingfish

Apr 20 2007

To follow up with Brian's question, then where does the judicial performance watch dog group come in? I guess I'm confused, because wasn't it the watch dog groups findings/impressions that the MSSC used to make judgement against Lumumba?

JenniferGriffin

Apr 20 2007

bar complaint I'd guess the judge filed a complaint with the bar, the bar had its hearing, disciplined him, and then he appealed to MSSC. I don't know the details of it so any can feel free to correct me.

Kingfish

Apr 20 2007

Kfish, I may need correcting, too, but I don't think this is the standard procedure...when Lumumba called the judge a barbarian and yet another judge went to the 'highest bidder' in both cases, the SC immediately sanctioned the attorney...what's the difference? There was no hearing in either case...I believe the SC is clearly not going to do what's right...otherwise they would have done it already and that is to sanction Danks for calling Green a criminal.

motherofthekings

Apr 21 2007

I'm not sure. That was just what I gleaned from the Miss Bar website. However, that was for a bar complaint against an attorney, I'm not sure what it is when it involves a judge; hence the disclaimer and my invitation for correction from our known legal beagle posters.

Kingfish

Apr 21 2007

I am not a wealth of knowledge on bar complaints/sanctions thankfully... :D My only reasoning behind this remanding to the trial court is to that the lower court is a finder of fact, and once the lower court finds their 'facts' whatever they may be, then the sup.ct. will come out and rule on the punishment.

LawClerk

Apr 21 2007