Jackson Free Press

The Associated Press is reporting that the Mississippi Supreme Court has voted 8-1 to re-instate controversial attorney Chokwe Lumumba. Here's a JFP news story with relevant context, and an opinion piece against his disbarment.

Previous Comments

ID

90998

Comment

Lumumba never should have been suspended to begin with, and Easley's dissent sums up the problems that come with having an elected Supreme Court in a state that won't even take the Confederate battle flag off the damn Capitol. Marcus Gordon, the leadership of the Bar, and the Mississippi Supreme Court owe Lumumba an apology, not the other way around. This is inexcusable. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-19T17:09:40-06:00

ID

90999

Comment

if available, a transcript of the comments would be nice.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-19T17:27:32-06:00

ID

91000

Comment

Great victory. Welcome back. People need your services, Chokwe. Follow the rules so we can keep your benefits and services. As a person who knows that judge's temperament and ways too, please try to tolerate him as the rest of us have to also. Aftr all, he rocked on at least one big case.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-01-20T14:08:09-06:00

ID

91001

Comment

Tom, I took the liberty of finding the opinion, I don't have a link for it, but here it is. It's not posted yet on the MSSCT website. Also, the cite for the previous MSSCT case where he was supsended is 912 So.2d 871. I would recommend that people actually read it for themselves. IN RE: THE PETITION OF CHOKWE LUMUMBA FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THE MISSISSIPPI BAR No. 2006-BR-00990-SCT Supreme Court of Mississippi. ORDER ¶ 1. Chokwe Lumumba was suspended from the practice of law for six months and until he retook and passed the Ethics portion of the Mississippi Bar Examination, fined $1,000, and required to pay the Bar's costs. Miss. Bar v. Lumumba, 912 So.2d 871, 889 (Miss.2005), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 363, 163 L.Ed.2d 70 (2005). ¶ 2. Lumumba now petitions this Court for reinstatement to the Mississippi Bar pursuant to Rule 12 of the Mississippi Rules of Discipline. In support, Lumumba submits that he has satisfied all requirements for reinstatement, In re Benson, 890 So.2d 888, 890 (Miss.2004), and the Mississippi Bar agrees. ¶ 3. Finding that Chokwe Lumumba has sufficiently demonstrated that he has satisfied the conditions precedent for reinstatement to the Bar, we grant his Petition and reinstate Chokwe Lumumba as a member of the Mississippi Bar to the privilege of practicing law in the State of Mississippi effective upon the entry of this order. ¶ 4. SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of January, 2007. /s/ James W. Smith, Jr. JAMES W. SMITH, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE FOR THE COURT WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., DIAZ, CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT. EASLEY, JUSTICE, SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT: ¶ 5. I respectfully object to the reinstatement of Chokwe Lumumba to the Mississippi Bar. Lumumba publicly insulted Judge Marcus Gordon in open court. Judge Gordon is a long-serving circuit judge in Mississippi. He takes his office seriously and is committed to maintaining fairness and integrity in his court. When Lumumba chose to insult Judge Gordon, Lumumba insulted both Judge Gordon and the entire Judiciary of the State of Mississippi. ¶ 6. Our courts must have the highest degree of integrity in order for our citizens to have trust and respect for the court system. The Mississippi judiciary, including Judge Gordon, always strives to achieve this high goal. Our citizens, including attorneys practicing in the court system, must be courteous, maintain decorum, and show proper respect for our judges and the court system. ¶ 7. In his affidavit, attached to the petition for reinstatement, and in his deposition, attached to the Bar's answer, Lumumba acknowledged that his choice of words were poor. By not apologizing to Judge Gordon, orally or in writing, Lumumba has not acted in good faith and has not shown real remorse for his actions. Therefore, I respectfully object to the reinstatement of Lumumba.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-01-21T21:32:58-06:00

ID

91002

Comment

LC, I'd already read Justice Easley's dissent, which I'd already read and found unconvincing. Am I missing something...? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-21T21:50:29-06:00

ID

91003

Comment

Tom, It wasn't necessarily the dissent, but the actual opinion. I don't think a blanket statement that the MSSCT needs to apologize is warranted. I've also read the original opinion that went to the MSSCT and there is a dissent and a concurrence/dissent as well. If you can't find it, I can provide you with a link to it. There is a transcript of what was said during trial and after the trial to the CL... It's pretty damning dialogue.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-01-21T22:22:35-06:00

ID

91004

Comment

I'd love to see the transcript. I don't think its asking a bit much that if we are going to discuss this that we should be able to know what he actually said. I have no idea if punishment was warranted or not; however, we should be able to read his words on this thread.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-21T22:43:19-06:00

ID

91005

Comment

According to the article I read, what got Lumumba suspended was that he told a C-L reporter that Gordon had "the temperament of a barbarian." In a state where judges can go around bragging about being prejudiced against lesbian and gay plaintiffs, why is that grounds for a six-month Bar suspension, much less (as per Easley's suggestion) an indefinite suspension pending apology? Or is it that attorneys are supposed to be held to a higher standard of impartiality than judges? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-21T23:33:40-06:00

ID

91006

Comment

Here is the trial transcript: ¶ 19. At the conclusion of the presentation by counsel, the trial court denied the motion, consuming five pages of transcript explaining his reasoning. Things went downhill from there. It was then that the following took place: MR. LUMUMBA: I have another application here, Judge. The Court has denied my right to call the jurors in order to talk about the outside influences. What I would do at this time is make an application for a continuance of this motion for a new trial and for instructions to the prosecutor to provide me with the location and addresses of two people who have to do with some of the outside influences, and, there's no rule prohibiting them from testifying as to whether people know them, and, it's really no rule prohibiting a juror from testifying whether they know people, even after the verdict. But, in any event, one would be Eric Freeman, and, the other one would be who is, interestingly enough, no longer in jail as we found out, and secondly would be Mr. Britt. So, we would be requesting that we get this information and that the hearing be continued for a sufficient amount of time for us to bring these witnesses forward to see if, in fact, as we have alleged, they have information which is helpful to the determination of this motion or any other motion which might be properly brought under the context of this motion for a new trial. THE COURT: I am going to overrule your motion. There must be some finality to these cases. What that is, it appears to me to be entirely a fishing matter, so the final order of this Court is your motion for a new trial is overruled. MR. LUMUMBA: Well, Judge this-- THE COURT: No additional hearing will be heard regarding your motion for new trial. MR. LUMUMBA: Just for the record, Your Honor, it's a little more--it's a little less than a fishing expedition ... In fact it is very focused and direct. But, the Court's resolution of the motion is not to be unexpected, given the Court's demeanor during the entire trial. THE COURT: What do you mean by that? MR. LUMUMBA: What I mean is that the Court didn't handle the trial fairly, is not handling the motion fairly. THE COURT: Well, you make it very difficult to work with, Mr. Lumumba. I think I gave you a fair trial, and, certainly, anything that I did before the jury, nothing that I did-- MR. LUMUMBA: Well, let me say this Judge. THE COURT: Just a minute, now. I'm-- MR. LUMUMBA: I have-- THE COURT: You just-- MR. LUMUMBA:--another-- *880 THE COURT:--wait just a minute. MR. LUMUMBA: I have another-- THE COURT: I'm the Judge of this Court-- MR. LUMUMBA: I have another issue. I just want you to know I have another issue. THE COURT: I want you to know this hearing is now over with and-- MR. LUMUMBA: Can I ask-- THE COURT: And there will be nothing else to be made of record. MR. LUMUMBA: Can I address another issue? You don't want to hear it? You don't want the Court to hear it? It's another issue. It's not what we talked about. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. MR. LUMUMBA: And, what I'm doing is offering this to you, so you can, perhaps, get along better with other lawyers in the future. THE COURT: Well, don't you worry about-- MR. LUMUMBA: Okay. Can I finish? THE COURT:--how I get along with lawyers. MR. LUMUMBA: Can I finish, please? THE COURT: You worry about how you get along with Courts. MR. LUMUMBA: Can I finish, please? THE COURT: No. MR. LUMUMBA: Judge-- THE COURT: Remove him from the Courtroom. MR. LUMUMBA: Are you going to have-- THE COURT: I am going to have you removed-- MR. LUMUMBA:--your henchmen throw me out, Judge? THE COURT: Until you show some respect to the Court-- MR. LUMUMBA: I'm trying to show you some respect. THE COURT: Will you remove him from the Courtroom? MR. LUMUMBA: That's the way you've handled it the whole Court. I'm proud to be thrown out of your Courtroom. THE COURT: All right. Just a minute. That will cost you three hundred dollars, Mr. Lumumba. Now if you want to continue-- MR. LUMUMBA: Look, Judge, if we've got to pay for justice around here, I will pay for-- THE COURT:--I will exercise my discretion-- MR. LUMUMBA:--justice. THE COURT:--regarding a jail sentence. MR. LUMUMBA: I've paid other judges to try to get justice, pay you, too, if that's what is necessary. THE COURT: It will cost you $500.00. You will serve three days in the County Jail. You will start serving it immediately, for contempt of Court. MR. LUMUMBA: No problem. Are you going to feed me? I can't get my bag? THE COURT: Court is in recess.

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-01-22T08:12:52-06:00

ID

91007

Comment

Yeah, those comments should've gotten him in trouble. If the Judge refuses to hear issues, there is a remedy. Its called an appeal. Insulting a judge in while he is on the bench isn't too smart and will get you in trouble almost every time. Saying you'll pay the judge for justice sounds damn near like an attempt at bribery or saying the judge is on the take. Not too many judges will appreciate those comments either.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-22T10:33:57-06:00

ID

91008

Comment

It's kind of like getting pulled over by a cop. The cop MIGHT be in the wrong, and might trample your rights.. but it is NEVER a good thing to take on a cop on the streets. Take him on in court. I never argue with them if I get pulled over. Kind of like in the court. If the judge is being patently unfair, take it up on appeal. You are doing your client a MASSIVE disservice by being a jerk to the Judge. Just my .02. lc

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-01-22T11:19:18-06:00

ID

91009

Comment

...Lumumba reinstated, that's a good thing. This case has such blatant racist tones. It's old MS politics where in an A-American can not even look a White man in the eye and saying anything back to a Judge would serve as a prescription for a lynching. LawClerk, I understand your recommendation and it would be fine if this were an ordinary case. It isn't. At some point, people get tired of this crap and it causes the most controlled and contained person to speak up and out. These negatives tossed on a person by an oppressor, real or perceived, is like throwing a baby on a red hot stove. It HURTS!

Author

justjess

Date

2007-01-22T12:01:03-06:00

ID

91010

Comment

so justjess, you think if that the attorney would've been white, he wouldn't have gotten in any trouble?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-22T12:02:36-06:00

ID

91011

Comment

I'm saying even more than that: If the attorney had been White, this situation would not have existed at all. Been there - Saw that.

Author

justjess

Date

2007-01-22T12:11:53-06:00

ID

91012

Comment

Been there, saw that, and seen attorneys get held in contempt for those kind of comments.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-22T12:16:24-06:00

ID

91013

Comment

Justjess is right on this one, Kingfish. Chokwe has long been targeted due to his efforts on behalf of "thugs"; there is no secret here. Once again I have to remind you: Racism does still exist. We don't wish it away. The only way to get rid of it is by acknowledging it when it does exist.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-22T12:18:20-06:00

ID

91014

Comment

and once again you read too much in my posts. I'm basing my comments on experience. I've seen lawyers make those kind of comments and get held in contempt for making them so I don't swallow the line that he was punished due to racism. Attorneys cross the line in court, some get away with it, some don't. However, I think he was smart enough to know he was crossing the line. What some judges will allow, others won't but there is still a line you don't cross in the courtroom.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2007-01-22T12:24:43-06:00

ID

91015

Comment

Justjess, I read Lumumba's background, and while he might represent targeted individuals, in the case at hand I don't think he was being targeted b/c of his clients. If he could have kept silent on the issue that got him sanctioned, he wouldn't have been suspended. Ladd, it's an easy argument to make that just b/c Lumumba is black, that he's being targeted, especially in MS. But I think if you read the entire opinion, which I have cited in an earlier post, he was clearly in the wrong. Granted, I don't have personal knowledge of other attorneys being suspended for courtroom behavior because if it happens to a white person, it doesn't get media attention. Has it happened in MS? I am positive it indeed has. We just don't hear about it. lc

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-01-22T12:52:29-06:00

ID

91016

Comment

Interestingly enough, I found where a sitting trial Judge made a derogatory comment about the Appeals Court and that landed him in some hot water! http://volokh.com/posts/1167289111.shtml (from the article...) During a proceeding about a guilty plea in state trial court, a trial judge made a dismissive comment to the prosecutor about needing to follow a particular procedure to avoid reversal by appellate courts. "Oh, that’s right," the Judge remarked, "You can’t offend the kangaroos up there in kangaroo court." On appeal following a guilty plea, the intermediate appellate court went out of its way to scold the trial judge for making the comment. Here is the passage from the appellate court's opinion in People v. Zackery, which was selected for publication in relevant part: In making his "kangaroo court" remark, on the record in open court, Judge Saiers violated Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which provides as pertinent: "A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. [¶] An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective." (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 1.) ***** If you're interested, make sure to read the comments below that passage. It's really interesting. No word on what race the Judge is though. lc

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-01-22T13:01:08-06:00

ID

91017

Comment

This isn't Lumumba's first rodeo. And I'm not so sure Lumumba's in-court conduct has anything to do with standing up to racism. Note the following remarks by Lumumba to Judge Graves in open court: "You know, Judge, you seem to have a selective memory. First of all, not making an objection in this case has never been an impediment to you stopping somebody from doing something. As I recall, as you look at the clock and don't pay attention to what I'm saying, that the situation at the very beginning of this trial was one where you interrupted voir dire, which no one objected to. Secondly, you sat here and allowed them to testify, and in some instances over our objections, to what they could hear from inside of one place or the other place. So if they can testify to what they could hear, how is it that we can't testify as to what we could hear? That doesn't make sense. It is a question of weight of the testimony. It's not a question of admissibility of the testimony. That's a very simple and basic concept that most jurists would understand. That you do not have to exclude the testimony because of the alleged lack of weight of the testimony. The argument that somebody else could have heard can easily be made by the proponent of that position in an argument. That's the point to be made. But since, as the record may reflect, you don't seem to be listening anyway, I'm going to stop talking. It doesn't make sense to talk to nothing or to nobody. And so that's the point to be made as it relates to this particular situation. As far as him testifying to what he saw at the building, that is not the kind of inquiry which is relevant once someone has been allowed to testify as to what they could hear. And I would ask the Court or thank the Court to stop making implied intimidations to this side, whatever you do over there, because I am not impressed." Anyone who would speak this way to any judge, especially Judge Graves, has no respect for the courts whatsoever. It appears to me that, rather than fighting racism, Lumumba throws a little tantrum everytime something doesn't go his way in court. Judge Gordon simply put a stop to it--as he should have.

Author

Curt Crowley

Date

2007-01-22T13:22:04-06:00

ID

91018

Comment

Well, that's certainly a more complete transcript than the quotes provided by the C-L, which did not even appear in that exchange. Good work, LC. Thanks. To be honest, I still find myself a hell of a lot more sympathetic to Lumumba's position than Gordon's, and Easley's dissent still smells funny, but I can at least understand how this produced a six-month suspension. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-22T14:25:21-06:00

ID

91019

Comment

Tom, Anytime! I am definitely sympathetic to his position... anyone that provides a defense to a more-than-likely indigent defendant has my vote. That being said, there is a line to cross, and in my opinion, he crossed it. He's back though, and I'm sure will continue to give his clients the best defense available. lc

Author

LawClerk

Date

2007-01-22T15:36:15-06:00

ID

91020

Comment

He will also be more careful with everyone.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-01-22T15:44:08-06:00

ID

91021

Comment

I must say this should not be a discussion about the race of the lawyer. He was OUT of line with the circuit judge. In the profession you have to be civil, even if the judge was WAY out of line, you suck it up, appeal or file a complaint and appeal. Mr Lumumba does have a reputation for this and I am sure that influenced both the judge's issuance of a contempt ruling and the sanctions imposed by the bar. As far as race. It always comes up in matters due to Mississippi's past and rightfuly so we should be sensitive. However, Mr. Lumumba comments to Justice Graves proves Mr. Lumumba sees past race and is disrepectful to members of the bench, white or black. I am SHOCKED that Justice Graves did not hammer him worse than the circuit judge. I really love and respect the hell out of Justice Graves, but I would NEVER cross him. I would also never say anything like that to ANY member of the judiciary, no matter how tempting it would be. And as far as the issues raised about him defending "thugs"... It is accepted among the lawyers I know (both defense and prosecutors), that zealous representation is expected (and often for defense your clients are "thugs" nuns, priests and choir members usually are not accused). However, disrespecting the court and the practice of law is not. Just the opinion of a soon to be (hopefully) member of the bar. AGamma627

Author

AGamm627

Date

2007-01-24T01:31:54-06:00