Jackson Free Press

After Mayor Frank Melton and his two bodyguards were acquitted in a Hinds County court last year for the Ridgeway duplex demolition, the JFP's Brian Johnson wrote this analysis of the trial:

The defense won by convincing Judge Joe Webster to allow defense lawyers to frame the trial. Defense lawyers employed a two-part strategy in order to win acquittal while admitting that the defendants had, in fact, demolished the duplex. First, they used an archaic definition of "malice" to argue that the jury had to find that the defendants had evil in their hearts in order to convict. Second, they convinced the jury that the Ridgeway duplex was a crack house.

With the trial framed in these terms, the prosecution stood little chance.

In opening statements, defense lawyers argued that jurors would have to find that the defendants had "evil intent" in order to convict because of the word "malicious" in the charge of felony malicious mischief. In closing statements, Wright attorney Robert Smith said the defendants were "brave men with good hearts," and Melton attorney Merrida Coxwell said that "one thread" ran through all the charges, which was whether the defendants had acted with "evil intent."

The whole thing is definitely worth a read.

Previous Commentsshow

Bump. Definitely worth reading to understand what happened at the first trial—that we highly suspect will not happen in a federal courtroom.

DonnaLadd

Jul 10 2008

The link above actually misdirects. Could someone fix it? The analysis is actually here. The most important part of the analysis may be Mississippi College of Law professor Matt Steffey's explanation of how prosecutors gamed the meaning of "malice." Steffey said that the purpose of the word “malice” in the statute was to distinguish deliberate acts from accidental ones, and he said that a modern code would have “foreclosed” any argument by the defense about “evil intent” through a clearer definition. Steffey implied that presenting the burden of proof this way allowed defense lawyers to open the door to jury nullification without violating court rules against such a defense. “If you’re on the jury, it allowed Mr. Danks to say you can’t convict (Melton) unless he had evilness of disposition, whatever that means. I know that it means it wasn’t an accident, but I think it plants the idea in the jury’s mind, ‘Do you really want to convict him for this?’” Steffey said. “All they could argue was jury nullification, and it worked,” District Attorney Faye Peterson told the Jackson Free Press. In other words, if Judge Webster had done his job, he would have made it clear to the jury that all of the smoke from Melton's lawyers--especially Danks and Coxwell--about "brave men with good hearts" was utterly beside the point. The issue was whether or not Melton et al. deliberately destroyed the house rather than accidentally or negligently destroyed the house. It has always been completely clear that Melton et al. destroyed the house on purpose, so the jury essentially ignored the law. Coxwell and Danks invited them to do so. Webster let them get away with it.

Brian C Johnson

Jul 10 2008

Sorry. Fixed. ;-) I remember sitting in the courtroom being simply bedazzled at the jury instructions the defense got through. Methinks Webster was a boondoggle from the beginning; Tomie Green was not perfect by any means, but she actually seemed to have a sense of what was at stake. The most devastating point for me was when the judge dropped the terms of the bond/probation and let Melton start supervising kids again. It's fitting, I guess, that the feds are once again coming into Mississippi and trying people who think their particular brand of terror is above the law, after local courts allow them to get away with it.

DonnaLadd

Jul 10 2008

good summation, bcj - nice to have you posting

Izzy

Jul 10 2008

As a criminal defense attorney, I wish I could say I was shocked that the judge allowed such an off the wall defense, but of course this is the same judge that seems to specialize at being appointed in being appointed to rule over public corruption scandals (Look to Binky Vines in Natchez) and letting the officials introduce odd defenses or taking pleas under advisement or anything to keep them in power. As for the "evil intent defense" I applaude Coxwell and Danks for raising it. If you have nothing, shoot for the moon. I understand. I am about to raise the "oops I shot him because I was trying to give the gun back to him" defense in court.... BECAUSE THAT IS ALL I GOT. The scrutiny should be on the judge for allowing an argument that is not legally valid and the jury for being so blind that they only saw a comic book hero figure. Hopefully the feds will have a wider jury pool and a judge that does not specialize in trying public corruption cases and ensuring the defendant walks

AGamm627

Jul 10 2008

Agamm, I agree: You can't blame Danks et al. for raising it. But it is a real shame they were allowed to.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2008