Jackson Free Press

This story will appear in the print edition on Wednesday, Sept. 19.

Johnathan Jones walked back into Pops Around the Corner on Dec. 28, 2005, after leaving earlier to go home to Brandon. He told the bartender that "some n*gger" had thrown a beer bottle through his window and that he was "going to kill" the "n*gger." He asked the bartender to help him call the police to fill out a case report so his insurance company could replace the window.

Jones had already, however, killed 18-year-old Reginald Daniels by shooting him in the back after Daniels had thrown a rock—not a beer bottle—at his truck.

Hinds County Judge Swan Yerger gave Jones only two years in prison Monday for killing Daniels, saying that the victim and his friends were planning to carjack Jones, although there is no way Jones could have known if that was their plan when he fired at their backs.

Jones, who is white, qualified for 20 years prison time after a Hinds County jury convicted him of manslaughter, but Yerger gave Jones eight years, with six years suspended. Yerger blamed the dead victim, who is black, for the killing, explaining that Jones fired at the teenagers after somebody threw a rock through the window of his truck.

"Those three young men were looking for trouble," Yerger argued from the bench. "(Jones) was not looking for trouble. He was on his way home."

Daniels' mother, Lizzi Daniels, said Yerger decided to go easy on a young white man. "It was racist from the beginning," Daniels said. "They didn't know they were going to carjack that man. … To me, it was just a rock versus a .45. If a man chucks a rock, the judge is saying that you got a right to shoot him in the back with a weapon."

Jones, 25, testified that he drove down West Street after leaving Pops because he had missed his turn, although many bar patrons use this route to avoid police and checkpoints on the higher-trafficked roads.

One of the young men with Daniels that night testified that they hurled a rock at Jones' truck around 9 p.m. as it turned onto West Street. As soon as the rock hit the truck, the driver slammed on the breaks, and the pedestrians started running away from the vehicle, not toward it, as suggested by the location of the entry wound on Daniels' back.

"Jones basically U-turns on West Street, comes back up Gallatin, in the direction they were running, hangs his .45 handgun out the window and fires eight times, emptying the gun and shooting Reginald Davis in the back," said Hinds County Assistant District Attorney Stanley Alexander, who was dismayed by Yerger's light sentence.

The shooter testified that he never did stop driving, that he turned onto Gallatin Street, somehow put his left hand on the top of the steering wheel, his right hand across his left arm, and shot a .45 out the window. None of the shell casings was inside his vehicle. All were outside in a small pattern, suggesting that the truck was not moving.

Nobody testified Jones was standing at his truck instead of driving. The surviving targets say their backs were to the defendant as they fled.

Jones' racist posturing back at the bar that night prompted Alexander to prosecute the case as a hate crime.

However, Yerger ruled last week the prosecution had not proved that Jones committed a hate crime.

Jones' attorney, Bill Kirksey, said Jones didn't deserve hate-crime status.

"The reason the judge dismissed the hate crime portion of it wasn't because he found that it didn't apply, but because the state failed to prove one of the three elements to allow it to go forward," Kirksey said. "… They have to prove that the deceased was a member of a recognized class, that the defendant knew he was a member of a recognized class, and that the reasons, or the underlying intent, was that it was done with malice. They put on proof through a police officer that the deceased was black, they put on a portion of Jonathan's statement where he said he was black. They didn't put on any proof of that third element. The use of the n-word does not make the crime a hate crime. … If I shot someone and then called him a dirty goddamned Irishman, does that make it a hate crime?"

Alexander said the jury should have been given the chance to try the case as a hate crime. "The jury got to hear the language that was used, but they did not get to decide on whether or not it was a hate crime. I think they would have judged it as a hate crime had they been given the option by the court," Alexander said.

The night of the shooting, Jones told the police officer that three black men were on Gallatin Street, and that one of them had thrown a beer bottle through his window—not that he had killed a man. He quickly disposed of his weapon the next day. His co-worker, Aaron Burns, of Hattiesburg, ratted him out in testimony, telling the court that Jones had given him his gun and told him to hang onto it for him.

That same day, however, JPD was already connecting the dots, linking a Dec. 28 broken-window report with a Gallatin Street shooting involving a black truck and a white driver. One of Daniels' companions had admitted to the coroner that they threw rocks at a truck and that the driver had reacted with gunfire.

Jones was not entirely honest in the police precinct, either, telling officers that he thought someone had shot at him. He told police he tossed his weapon out of the truck window, instead of passing it off to a friend. Jones had also contradicted himself during his police statement, saying he had known someone had thrown something at him as soon as he had seen them, while at the same time speaking of being shot at.

Jones' gun, later recovered, proved the source of the gun casings found on the scene.

The jury found Jones guilty, handing him the manslaughter sentence. During his fit of leniency, however, Yerger made no mention of Jones' lies about the gun, his conflicting bullet-versus-beer-bottle inconsistency—or the "n*gger" rant.

Yerger did reference a claim from a witness for the defendant, Jarvis Cousins, saying the rock-throwers were looking to car-jack Jones' vehicle. "In this case it is undisputed that three young men, including the victim, Reginald Daniels, were throwing rocks at the defendant's vehicle with the intent to hijack the defendant's vehicle. I use the term hijacking, but I mean car-jacking," Yerger said.

Jones, being no mind reader, could not have known that Daniels and company were intending to car-jack his vehicle. One of Daniels' companions, Corey McKennis, even called the accusation garbage, but didn't put his statement before the jury. Alexander told the JFP he didn't bother to put McKennis on the stand because the jury seemed already convinced of Jones' guilt after his inconsistent stories.

"I didn't think it was important, and obviously the jury agreed with me. They heard about the claim of carjacking, and they still found him guilty," Alexander said.

Lisa Jones called her son "a good man," before Yerger rendered sentence in a court with white friends and relatives of the defendant on the left and black friends and family of the victim on the right. His decision prompted outcry from the right side of the room, squelched by a quick bark of "there will be quiet in this courtroom" from one of the county officers in attendance.

Kirksey said Yerger made the right choice. "Under the facts and circumstances, I think Judge Yerger did the right thing. There were some people who thought he should've overturned the sentence entirely," Kirksey said.

Yerger took into consideration Jones' lack of a police record in his sentencing, though the judge's record shows he rarely takes into account the clean history of a defendant in manslaughter cases.

Prosecutors, seeking the full 20-year sentence for Jones, reminded Yerger that he had sentenced 23-year-old single mother Sharise Ford to 17 years for aggravated assault for stabbing a co-worker in the eye in 2004.

Ford, like Jones, did not have a prior record, and the victim in that case did not die. Ford, a mother of three, claimed she had been defending herself when she injured Missy Gibbs with a breakfast knife at the Comfort Inn on Hwy. 18, in Jackson. Ford was black, while Gibbs was white.

The jury rejected Ford's defense in that case, and Yerger claimed the two cases did not compare. "In the case involving the stab in the eye, it was a totally unprovoked act on the part of the defendant," Yerger claimed.

The NAACP released a statement echoing Daniels' charges of racism, and referenced Yerger's history with Ford.

"These two cases show the discrepancies in sentencing from Yerger's court," said Mississippi NAACP President Derrick Johnson. "… We are appalled at the blatant disparity in treatment of individuals who have been accused of crimes of lesser offense, yet the judge decided to give them a harsher sentence. It brings to question whether or not he values the life of African Americans."

Daniels' family does not have the option of an appeal. The state cannot try Jones a second time.

Previous Commentsshow

Since the days of the old west "back shooting" has never been considered self defense and clearly the jury felt the same way. It appears that Yerger decided to second guess the decision of the jury and sentence Jones to the least possible sentence. I noticed that Kirksey said that "some people" thought Yerger should have overturned the jury's decision. I wonder if the new administration would have had the courage to try Jones on this charge. I found it strange that in the print edition of the CL they failed to mention that "Alexander" is employed by the Hinds County DA's office. Haven't they heard the news that Peterson lost and consequently there is no need to omit the fact that her office stood up for the rights of this young man. Does the madness ever end?

thetruth

Sep 18 2007

Does the madness ever end? Apparently not. I'm amazed that they never mentioned Pops Around the Corner or the racial slurs. Remarkable case, being that Yerger used a planned carjacking that the shooter could not have known might happen as an excuse for his light sentence.

DonnaLadd

Sep 18 2007

that is terrible. it's a pity that in 2007 there is still so much blatant racism here in MS. and what kind of test is "provocation" anyway? how can you say someone deserved to be killed because they were merely provoking someone else? assault, maybe, because then it could be considered self-defense. but since when did throwing a rock at a car constitute attempted carjacking, and justify murder? if someone threw a rock at my car and i thought that was their intent, i'd just keep on driving. what a shame.

music chick

Sep 18 2007

This one smells, not just for this outcome, but from an earlier one. To play devils advocate first... Hearing from some of the attorneys involved, not ONE of the victims witness ever identified him as a good man and it was assumed that a car jacking probably was going to happen. Also there was NO testimony about the slur at all. According to the consensus if he wasn't hit in the back, according only to second hand court house gossip, he would have walked. ( a jury member also repeated this in confidence to an attorney who of course gossiped the hell out of it) There IS a more disturbing problem I am disturbed that two or so years ago an African American woman got seventeen years, no chance of parole for stabbing a fellow white employee in the eye with a fork. Sounds awful, but the white employee had attacked her from behind in the kitchen. The African American woman stabbed back also in "self defense" and also had NO prior record. There is obviously a large divergence in these two sentences. Both were individual with no records arguably defending themselves. Why were the sentences SO different? I think that speaks larger volumes than the sentence on Jones. Comments? I was not associated on the case, heard no testimony and had never heard of the slurs. I do think these two cases point to a problematic difference. It would appear the Judge was less concerned about a first time offender arguably defending himself, than with possible issues of race or gender.... Just a thought

AGamm627

Sep 18 2007

My thing is, there is a big difference between throwing a rock at a moving vehicle and attacking someone. and just because someone wasn't described as a "good man" doesn't automatically make them a carjacker. And the castle doctrine doesn't apply here, either. It definitely stinks of unfairness.

music chick

Sep 18 2007

I agree that there is a GROSS difference between the sentences. I was stating that according to court house gossip (from prosecutor and defense, largely from the defense but also acknowledged by the prosecutor... privately) a car jacking probably was the intent. As far as the "good man" description to the judge,according to people in the court house, never happened and I was questioning Adam"s statement that this was made in court, during testimony. I may have misread him, but it implied it was made in testimony. Again I am getting this from several people in the court room/house. I was not there and was NOT privy to any of this. Just putting out what I have been told. Again, my problem is not the sentence on this man, it is the VAST differences on the two sentences that I pointed out, with two defendants, both with no records, one white defendant that "defended himself" against an African American "attacker", killed him and got 2 years and an African American female that "defended herself" against a white "attacker"put out her eye, and got 17 years no parole... There is a difference and race and gender are all I can see.....

AGamm627

Sep 18 2007

music chick: "My thing is, there is a big difference between throwing a rock at a moving vehicle and attacking someone. and just because someone wasn't described as a "good man" doesn't automatically make them a carjacker. And the castle doctrine doesn't apply here, either. It definitely stinks of unfairness." The Castle Doctrine didn't go into effect until July, 1, 2006. This happened six months prior. But even with the law now in place, it wouldn't have applied; you are correct. This was not case of self-defense IMHO. The three would have to be approaching the vechicle, not retreating. Yerger's sentence isn't fair, but I'll bet the other two won't be throwing anything at cars anytime soon. It's a litte hard to feel bad for the ones that started this ugly mess. But, that's just me.

Cliff Cargill

Sep 19 2007

I'm no lawyer, but I was wondering is there no possibility that Jones could be tried again in federal court under a different charge maybe? I guess not. This is terrible, no I see why I supported that other guy (what was his name?) that was trying to unseat yerger. Let's get this guy off the bench.

lanier77

Sep 19 2007

Johnnie and I had a case in Philadelphia, MS where a black guy bought a carburetor from a white seller that wasn't any good, and tried to return it, but has lost the receipt. The seller knew he sold the black guy the carburetor a day earlier but said without the receipt he wasn't refunding or replacing. The black guy cursed, hit the guy and got in his car to leave. As he backed out, the white guy threw a brick breaking the black guy's window. The black guy stopped and 9 milimetered the guy thereby killing him. The white guys parent owned a dealership in town and all kinds of people tried to trick us to get picked as jurors which we had sense enough to appreciate and avoid. We decided to pick mostly Indians and women as jurors. The judge forced us to take a manger from US Motors once he figured out our selections strategy. That man became the jury foreman and we lost. We appealed and got a reversal for that abuse of discretion by the judge. However, the defendant was eventually found guilty a second time of murder, not manslaughter. We couldn't get any black jurors for various reasons beyond our control. None of us who know that court is surprised. I don't think it's right either. Wasn't the defendant supposed to call he police. Can you carjack with your back turned and running away.

Ray Carter

Sep 19 2007

AGAMM, Judge Yerger did not allow the racial slurs into evidence during the guilt phase of the trial. The judge felt that the slurs would have been inflammatory. The prosecution argued strenuously for the evidence to be admitted but the Judge would not allow it.

thetruth

Sep 19 2007

Is the Ledger incapable of understanding, not to mention explaining, importance nuance? Today: Yerger said he sentenced Jones considering the circumstances in that Daniels or one of the two young men walking with him threw a rock at Jones' vehicle, shattering the window with the goal of getting him to stop so they could carjack him, based on testimony at trial last week. As I understand it, the jury was told to disregard this contention because there is no way that the defendant could have known that he might be carjacked. (Doh.) Then, how can Yerger justify using that information to sentence him so lightly after the jury convicted him? And why won't the Ledger tell its readers what Jones went back to the bar and said/did?

DonnaLadd

Sep 19 2007

that's a good point, if Yerger didn't let the jury have it, why did he use it? Any legal brains want to weigh in on that one?

Izzy

Sep 19 2007

Actually the jury was not told to disregard the info about the planned carjacking. However, during closing arguments Alexander did explain to the jury that there was no way Jones could have known what their intention was. Obviously the jury saw it Alexander's way since they found Jones guilty of manslaughter. In order to find him guilty the jury would have had to find that Jones did not act in necessary self defense. According to Yerger's explanation for his sentence, he took everything that Jones said as the gospel, even though he lied about the location of the gun as well as what caused his window to break (bullet vs. a bottle). In essence, Yerger disregarded the jury's duty as the fact finder and based his sentence around his own view of the facts. Yerger originally ruled that the jury would not hear about the planned carjacking because it was not relevant. He later allowed it into evidence for the purpose of impeachment after Cousins gave an excuse for throwing the rocks. My query is how can you consider the carjacking in sentencing when you previously said it wasn't relevant? Hmm?

thetruth

Sep 19 2007

There is hardly ever a case before the court where all the facts are known. I doubt anyone would elect to be hit by a rock. I believe the shooters truck window was knocked out. That would most probably take at least a fist sized rock. I would rather have a beer bottle hit me rather than a fist sized rock. I have been hit by both and neither was the act of a kind loving person. This incident started off with a senseless act of violence toward someone unknown to these young men. They had no idea what reaction they would get from their rock throwing. Someone shooting back at you is always a possibility. I don't know how to resolve a situation like this. I think two years is a very light sentence but the death penalty would have been absurd. I don't know if Judge Yerger is a racist. This does point out that a gun can get you in more trouble than you can get in on your own. If he had to throw rocks back, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Slider

Sep 19 2007

Can this be appealed? Yerger is ridiculous! The shooter deserves life in prison at minimum, death at maximum. [img]http://home.comcast.net/~tegaspard/images/smiles/angry.gif[/img]

LambdaRisen

Sep 19 2007

well he deserves a hell of a lot longer than 24 months folks......I mean a man is dead because he broke a window in a car????

ATLExile

Sep 20 2007

Right, ATL, and if Yerger wasn't going to let the racist comments into the trial, then he sure shouldn't have used the fact that the young men were allegedly going to carjack Jones to make his sentence lighter—considering that the shooter could not have known that. It's absurd.

DonnaLadd

Sep 20 2007

I thought that in MS your vehicle is considered just the same as your house, where if someone breaks into your house or vehicle you have the total right to protect yourself. If someone broke into my home and threw a rock at me, I would probably wake up so scared that I may shoot them too. Maybe this guy was also scared, didn't take the time to assess the situation, and felt the need to quickly react and defend himself.... Just a thought.

BB

Sep 23 2007

I forgot to ask, did the case with the woman who got seventeen years have the same judge as this one?

BB

Sep 23 2007

I feel the judge was correct. In this case, shooting someone in the back deserves punishment, but all three people throwing rocks were engaged in a conspiracy to commit a felony. I feel for the family but their son was "no good" and he died as in "death by misadventure." Crime is so rampant in Jackson that deathly force is needed to put it down. I do not agree that the defendant should have shot their son in the back or chased after them in his truck! I would have fled and called the police.

Turtleread

Sep 23 2007

BB, Same judge. Also she was a first offender as well. I have not read the full transcript, so there could be a twist, but still... SUCH a difference in the sentences. Of course in the shooting, having Bill Kerksey as your lawyer gives you a HUGE edge. The man is a pure genius at criminal cases. If I was ever charged for ANYTHING, I would sprint to his office, and I say this as a criminal defense attorney.

AGamm627

Sep 23 2007

Just a thought. Isn't there a real possibility the young men threw rocks at the truck of this guy because of statements just like the one Judge Yerger refused to admit into the trial? That makes much more sense to me than throwing rocks at a truck so they could carjack him. After all, there are certainly more effective ways of stopping someone in order to carjack them. Another question. What kind of truck was he driving which was apparently so appealing as to provoke someone to carjack him? This case like much of what Yerger does when it involves black defendants STINKS.

BuyJxn

Sep 24 2007

I can't find any record of Sharise Ford appealing (using the Miss. Supreme Court docket search). She had the right to have an attorney appointed to do an appeal. Am I missing something? That would be the first thing to do to address any improprieties at trial.

Jennifer2

Sep 24 2007

If I read the story correctly, this guy got rewarded for obviously was him killing a n*gger. Why would he go into the bar and try to lay down some cover story when he knew that he had already shot someone? And I have never heard of someone trying to carjack with a rock. That story would not have flown with a group of white youth. No one would have been able to assert that they were trying to carjack someone with a rock. And no one would have been accepting of one of them getting shot in the back. White people do not take time to put the shoe on the other foot sometimes. People would not be applauded the judge if the roles were reversed. People deserve justice. No one should get a pass, but justice should be blind and equal to the crime.

Goldenae

Sep 24 2007

"White people do not take time to put the shoe on the other foot sometimes." (Sorry, not sure how to italicize) Goldenae, so do black people always take time to put the shoe on the other foot? Wouldn't your statement apply to all races, not just "white people"?

BB

Sep 24 2007

According to the testimony, after the rock was thrown the three young men ran away from the truck. The truck then made a u-turn and pursued the three young men and then fired 8 shots from his gun. One of which struck Daniels in the back killing him. How on earth can you feel as if someone is threatening you when they are running away from you? As far as Kirksey being a great attorney, HIS CLIENT WAS FOUND GUILTY! I'm sure Kirksey did a good job but the prosecution proved its case. Yerger dropped the ball and imposed a sentence which he had never imposed before. Jones shot they young man in the back and then told lie after lie to cover his tracks. This is the behavior of a guilty man, not one that was defending himself. The jury saw through the lies and found him guilty. Yerger, for some unknown reason, let him off the hook and it just simply is WRONG.

thetruth

Sep 25 2007

BB, Some parts of the white community looks at things like this and thinks its really no big deal. I really do not ever want to look at life like that. There is no way in a million years that a judge would have said a group of white kids were trying to carjack somebody with rocks. Especially if one of them had been shot and killed by a black guy. Even if you remove race, the shooting was revenge. The driver could have kept going. The fact that the kids were black is what makes it more acceptable with one of them being killed. Sad to say, but generally speaking, black people can not expect the same justice as whites. Last week, some whites were upset because this white student was tazzed after he interrupted a Kerry speech. Black people looked at that and asked themselves where these people are when you see these videos of black kids, old men, etc being beaten by police. Justice should be blind.

Goldenae

Sep 27 2007

Goldenae, I definitely agree that justice should be blind... blind of race, social class, political connections, you name it. Your statement was rather racist, and yet that is what you are blaming this judge for. Black people aren't the only group that suffer injustices. I was just pointing out that it's incorrect to make such broad statements such as "White people do not take time to put the shoe on the other foot sometimes". It would be like saying, "White people do not like broccoli sometimes." You could make the statement about absolutely anyone.

BB

Sep 27 2007

Its 2011 and im still thinking about my cousin murder. I think the judge is a racist a**hole. I dont have a problem with white people nor any other race, unless they are hateful, and racist. As for Johnathan Jones "do unto others as you will have them do unto you", as they say, in other words if you think its ok to murder someone just to be hateful or just because he is black, it will come back on u, whether u have badluck for the rest of your life or whichever way God choose to punish you, you will reap what you sow. Yes, my cousin shouldnt have been throwing rocks or whatever him and his friends where doing, he did not deserve to die. I dont think he will rest in peace until Jones get what he deserve, thanks to the racist judge that wont happen.

justice05

Jan 17 2012