Photo caption: Jaribu Hill of the Magnolia Bar Association called for sanctions against Dale Danks Wednesday.
This story will appear in print in the March 22 issue of the Jackson Free Press.
Just a week after the Mississippi Supreme Court removed Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green from supervising Mayor Frank Melton's probation, Green has renewed her call for sanctions against former Mayor Dale Danks, who represents the mayor. Now, the Magnolia Bar Association has voiced its support for those sanctions.
In a motion to the Supreme Court dated March 14, Green acknowledged the high court's decision to remove her from supervising Melton's probation. The Supreme Court made that decision unanimously March 8, though Justices Oliver Diaz and James Graves Jr. dissented from the court's decision to void Melton's arrest warrant. When all other Hinds County circuit judges recused themselves from the case, the high court assigned Melton's probation to retired Coahoma County Judge Joe Webster, who promptly dismissed Melton's alleged violations as "technical" and unworthy of further jail time.
The Supreme Court made its decision without issuing any explanation, leaving myriad procedural questions raised by Danks' motions unresolved. However, it was the court's failure to address Danks' criminal accusations that elicited another pleading from Green.
"The court failed to address (my) request for sanctions for (Danks) falsely alleging that (I) had committed a crime by tampering, stealing/larceny or fraudulently withdrawing my order from the circuit clerk's file," Green wrote. "(Danks) violated … Rules of Professional Conduct and even submitted the pleading to the commission on Judicial Performance without just cause."
Now, the Magnolia Bar Association has weighed in on Green's behalf. District Director Jaribu Hill said Danks' assertion that Green broke the law was a slight of black female judges. "Danks has been a lawyer for a long time, and I don't recall him ever making such an accusation (against DeLaughter)," Hill told the Jackson Free Press. "This is unacceptable behavior for any of us. It's unacceptable behavior by (Danks). There is a protocol and a courtroom ethic that we have to abide by. We're not permitted to simply categorically dismiss the authority of a judge."
Hill said the court's slow reaction to Danks smelled of a double standard. "To bash the character of a judge has not been allowed. When (African-American attorney) Chokwe Lumumba was accused of making out-of-court statements to Judge Mark Gordon, he was sanctioned six months. We must challenge such double standards," Hill said.
Danks' accusation came amid a flurry of four motions he filed in three days with the high court, specifically a motion he filed March 6. In that motion, Danks described how Green filed an order the previous evening and then withdrew it due to an error. Green later explained that the afternoon she filed and then withdrew her order, she was filling in on jury selection for another judge who was sick. She also presided over two criminal cases that afternoon. When her clerk presented a draft of her order, she signed it and had her clerk file it with the circuit clerk's office. Shortly thereafter, she realized she had signed the wrong draft and that her clerk had forgotten to attach exhibits to the order, so she withdrew the order.
The following morning she filed a substitute order that was substantively the same as the original. Green has maintained that she followed Circuit Clerk Barbara Dunn's instructions in filing her substitute order and that it was Dunn who removed the original order. This might undermine any accusation of larceny, which Green characterized as "outlandish." She also argued that the Supreme Court frequently makes similar substitutions.
In his motion, however, Danks said that Green's actions were "a clear violation of Mississippi law." He asserted that Green had committed larceny, a felony, by "tampering with records" and that she could face five years in prison as punishment. "Judge Green had no authority whatsoever to remover her appealable Order from the Court file," Danks wrote, "and it appears she did so once she learned of this Court's opinion of March 5, 2007, in an attempt to deprive this Court of jurisdiction."
In her original response, Green asked the high court to strike Danks' criminal allegations as defamatory and derogatory. "I have never given either the Defendant or either of his attorneys reason to publicly make such harsh claims or criminal charges against the court, with complete disregard for the truth," Green wrote March 7.
In her new motion, Green notes that Danks never asked her or the circuit clerk why her order was withdrawn before accusing her of committing a felony. She asserts that she never tried to thwart the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and that she did not act in bad faith toward Melton. "(Danks) had already filed criminal charges with the Supreme Court knowing well that (his) criminal claims would be broadcast statewide by the media," Green wrote. She went on to suggest that Danks might be receiving special privileges and asked the high court to clear her name. "If the court fails to address this issue, it will leave the public, and members of the bar with the belief that the trial court's recusal may have some how been based on the criminal acts as alleged by Defendant's attorneys," Green wrote.
In a March 7 filing, Special Assistant Attorney General Harold E. Pizzetta III also took exception to Danks' language. "(Danks) has strayed beyond ardent advocacy by accusing the trial court judge of committing a crime," Pizzetta wrote. "This Court has previously cautioned attorneys that theatrical comments alleging judicial corruption for the purpose of securing a procedural advantage are inappropriate."
Pizzetta also argued that granting Danks' motions would undermine the regular appeals process by encouraging attorneys to make motions directly to the Supreme Court. Pizzetta argued that the high court would throw lower courts into confusion because his original motion was largely based upon Green's alleged direct involvement in Melton's plea bargain negotiations in November 2006. Green has denied that her participation was out of bounds. Regardless, there is a 30-day limit on seeking recusal, and Danks did not object to Green's involvement at the time.
"The time and diligence requirements … are designed to prohibit the strategy employed by (Danks)," Pizzetta wrote. "Knowing of potential grounds for recusal, a party may not delay seeking recusal until such time as an adverse ruling is entered."
In other words, an attorney cannot wait to file motions for recusal until a decision breaks against him and his client.
Jackson business owner Clay Edwards said that the courts' treatment of Melton's probation violations demonstrates the benefits of being wealthy and powerful. Edwards is currently on one year of probation for misdemeanors he committed in August 2006.
"If I broke the law, if I'd violated my probation, I'd be sitting in jail right now. They would have come and got me out of the hospital," Edwards said. "I wouldn't even get the luxury of turning myself in without Melton's money and lawyers. They would come and arrest me. You and I would not get Melton's royal treatment."
Hill said as much herself: "This happens to be a case involving a public official, but would it have been the same if it had been an average citizen? They have to abide by the law, or they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But in this case, there appears to be a double standard."
Previous Commentsshow
What's this?More like this story
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.