Jackson Free Press

After examining their witness list, based on the judge's limitations on discussion of past drug activity on Ridgeway Street, defense attorneys' acceptable list of witnesses has dropped to only two witnesses—drug users Tammy Callahan and another female—and the jury may never hear from them. The judge has said that testimony would be proper only outside the presence of the jury to ensure that their testimony is relevant to the case before he approves allowing the jury to hear their testimony.

This morning, the judge has had to recess the trial several times and send the jury out in order to resolve issues with defense witnesses who had not been properly revealed through the discovery process. At this point, the judge is visibly irritated at attorneys on both sides.

Watch for updates.

Previous Comments

ID

127646

Comment

It does boggle the mind that a defense team of that size and resources could not manage to produce evidence and witnesses in discovery prior to the trial. Unless, I guess, they didn't want to admit until the last minute that their defense was very weak. Thoughts?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T09:37:57-06:00

ID

127647

Comment

Ladd, There is a reason that they did not propound the proper discovery to the State. In my opinion, either they didn't have the discovery (as in they didn't "have" anything to propound), or they did not send it on purpose because they knew it wouldn't be introduced... and why give it to the other side? (Aside from it being required...) The defense plays dirty pool. But that is not surprising in and of itself. This is how they fight, and this is precisely why we have rules that dictate what is to be turned over, and when it's to be turned over. I think if they didn't turn it over on purpose, they might have thought that the judge would let it in anyways... They took a gamble and lost. I'm still leaning towards at least ONE guilty verdict, possibly two. lc

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T09:42:12-06:00

ID

127648

Comment

Get ready for a plea agreement...

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T09:48:46-06:00

ID

127649

Comment

Well Donna what kind of case can they have? 1. Somebody was in danger inside the house and they had to bash it in to "save" them? 2. The house was "condemed" by the building inspectors and had to be tore down and here is the certificate from the building inspector. 3. They wrecked the house to prevent it from being used as a crack house because evidence of it being used repeatedly as a crack house is present. I suppose they are using number 3 as their case, but evidence seems to be lacking, and I want to know what law exists on the books that allows police to destroy a building without any determination. The fact is they don't have a case, they decided to destroy the house based on some idea this was a crack house, without any research into whether what they were doing was legal or not. I mean this case and these people fail on all levels, incompetance of whoever labeled the place a crack house when none was found, incompetance of whoever decided it was proper to destroy a private building without having some legal basis to do so, and negligence for bringing along minors in a crime ridden area and involving them with something of dubious intent. The case has to fail, there is just no justification for the vandalism of a private home by the police without any sort of protocol being followed, and the incompetance displayed by the administration is just astounding.

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-04-25T09:50:32-06:00

ID

127650

Comment

Drug users? To try and prove the point that there was no malice in smashing up an alleged drug house? Boy, that's credible... (snerk)

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2007-04-25T09:52:34-06:00

ID

127651

Comment

Yep, and no malice in spitting on the U.S. Constitution by not bothering to present evidence and get a warrant like real police officers do. Today, our Constitution is on trial, folks. Pray it comes out standing up.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-04-25T09:55:18-06:00

ID

127652

Comment

DA shouldn't do a plea now unless it involves jail time for Melton, there is just no justification for the Mayor or the police to decide what houses to destroy or not. As Ladd stated this is a constitutional issue, and there is nothing that I can see that gives the Mayor or police the power to destroy a home.

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-04-25T09:59:39-06:00

ID

127653

Comment

make that one.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T10:02:07-06:00

ID

127654

Comment

if he would accept a plea in which he agreed to resign from office and reframe from having contact with minors that would be enough in my opinion. but i wouldn't lose sleep if he and his guards went to prison

Author

jd

Date

2007-04-25T10:02:41-06:00

ID

127655

Comment

no, I disagree. That just bolsters the claim that this was done solely to get him out of office. If he broke the law, I want a criminal penalty for it. That means fine or jail time.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-04-25T10:03:47-06:00

ID

127656

Comment

You may be right Fish, but if you were offering him a plea what would you offer? would you not offer him anything short of jail time.

Author

jd

Date

2007-04-25T10:09:10-06:00

ID

127657

Comment

The guy (s) vandalized a house to the point it became uninhabitable. That is jail time and isn't deserving of leniency.

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-04-25T10:09:26-06:00

ID

127658

Comment

I'm jus' sayin. Melton is feeling heat like he's never felt before. Usually, Danks would just get him out of anything. No biggie, right? Well, now the Judge isn't messing around. Melton probably really feels like he's in a tight spot right now and the possibility is REAL that he will serve time for his actions (and maybe get some help while he's there). Also, it's possible that he might get "chest pains" and be taken via 300M or Ambulance to St. D's. Just pointing out various scenarios.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T10:10:19-06:00

ID

127659

Comment

Unless the defense plans to call Melton as a witness, a trip to the hospital wouldn't save him now, would it?

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-04-25T10:13:12-06:00

ID

127660

Comment

GLewis... I don't know. You bring up a good point though. I don't think Melton will take the stand, but... if he can't get any witnesses on the stand due to bad lawyering by Danks, then he *might* take the stand in his own defense. But... then that would bring up a ton of perjury implications. Danks can't legally put him on the stand to commit perjury, if he knows that his testimony will be false.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T10:15:25-06:00

ID

127661

Comment

Of course with the defense not making much of a case, Melton now has a case of "innept defense" eh?

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-04-25T10:19:01-06:00

ID

127662

Comment

I don't think the trial would proceed if Melton is rushed to the hospital. I can see the judge keeping the jury a day or two, but after that, I think he would declare a mistrial and go home. Lets hope for a jury decision and wory about the implications when that happens. And yes, Jail time is demanded by me, not that I have any say in the matter!

Author

kdbstlrfan1

Date

2007-04-25T10:19:25-06:00

ID

127663

Comment

GLewis, No... I don't think ineffective counsel could be plead by Melton. That's just my opinion.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T10:21:26-06:00

ID

127664

Comment

Wait a minute. I thought the defense was not going to be allowed to pound the "crack house" defense down the throats of the jury. What gives?

Author

kdbstlrfan1

Date

2007-04-25T10:54:04-06:00

ID

127665

Comment

I'm not sure they've truly proven that the house is a crack house, event though they are trying. Of all the testimony so far I've had time to listen to, the first witness for the prosecution was what I remember - they were drinking beer for four hours, then the van with the Mayor and all arrived, they busted in, searched, tore up, threw paint (which I'm sure was to make sure there was no crack hiding in some bag somewhere - not!), threatened, but no drugs were used. I only heard part of the last witness, believe a JPD officer, but given what I heard, it appeared to me that the definition of crack house might mean that other people bring their own drugs to use while in the confines of those four walls, not necessarily that it is readily available for them to buy or use when they arrive empty handed.

Author

JenniferGriffin

Date

2007-04-25T11:43:12-06:00

ID

127666

Comment

This is ridiculous. So, if that guy that just got re-arrested for having a pound or so of pot in his jail cell (remember this??) should we tear down the jail? Didn't that guy stay with Melton too? You think if he's dumb enough to keep pot in jail, that he probably kept it at Melton's house too?

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-04-25T11:47:46-06:00

ID

127667

Comment

You know, I still think it all comes down to one thing. There was no search warrant, no probable cause (because they can't use the history of the house to prove probable cause, that has to be done on a case by case basis of immediate necessity), no inclusion of the drug task force, no inclusion of the Narc unit of JPD, no DEA, no ATF, no MBI! How can a jury possibly acquit, unless they want to? BTW, did anyone see the Ramsey Cartoon in CL. see it here I thought it was funny

Author

kdbstlrfan1

Date

2007-04-25T12:11:39-06:00

ID

127668

Comment

What does it say about public interest that no throngs are being restrained by the 'barricades'? I am predicting misdemeanor malicious mischief for the boys and we all call it a day.

Author

Randy Harris

Date

2007-04-25T12:16:30-06:00