Jackson Free Press

In a new motion filed in federal court (PDF) late today, Mayor Frank Melton claims that prosecutors must show that he had "evil motive" when he allegedly directed and helped police officers and teenagers destroy a duplex on Ridgeway Street in 2006. Federal attorneys have argued to the court that Melton's intent is not relevant and would not excuse his behavior that evening, as long as he knew he was breaking the law. Melton attorney John Reeves writes: "The deficiency in the prosecution's argument is clear. The prosecution suggestions that no inquiry is required beyond whether the mayor knew that his alleged conduct was unlawful when committed. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Reeves argues that the building's alleged criminal history is relevant, despite the government's assertion to the contrary, saying that they must prove that any constitutional violation of the rights of tenant Evans Welch or owner Jennifer Sutton "was done willfully with a bad purpose or evil motive." Thus, he writes, Melton must have the right to defend against the assertion of "bad purpose or evil motive." Reeves argues that the Fifth Circuit has allowed "alternative explanations for actions taken," such as when law enforcement officers delivered people to a mob to be beaten because the mob had threatened the officers."

Melton's attorney promises to "put on evidence of Mayor Melton's words, acts, and doings, attempting to prove the requisite specific intent." He has a right to present a defence, "which includes evidence of his knowledge of the location he is accused of damaging, his experience with the alleged victims and the neighborhood, his surroundings, and the intended result of his actions," Reeves wrote, adding near the end, "Mayor Melton seeks a fair trial, nothing more and certainly nothing less."

Previous Commentsshow

It's good to see that Melton is getting his money's worth from Reeves. Even if he prevails in this argument, the defense will still face a much tougher battle than they did the last time around. Wright will testify against Melton and Recio, and it's clear that the prosecution will push hard on the point that the defendants knew what the 4th amendment requires. Throw in Melton being drunk as a skunk, and that seems to show "bad purpose" to me. One question I have for the lawyers who may be lurking is how this matches up with the prosecution's arguments about a "justification" defense, i.e. that Melton must show he felt his life was threatened, he had no legal recourse, etc.? Is this a separate question from the jury instructions?

Brian C Johnson

Nov 20 2008

Well, I'm a wanna-be lawyer, or maybe more accurately, I play a lawyer on here occasionally. Not really sure I understand your question, Homes. Let me start by saying jury instructions are statements of the law and how it should be applied to the facts from the judge to the jury. The jury decides the facts of the case and the judge determines the law with a few exceptions that don't seem to apply here. It sounds to me like the prosecution is arguing Frank knew he couldn't go out to the man's house without probable cause, and if probable cause existed not without a search or arrest warrant and do any business out there under the color of law unless some kind of exigent or emergency circumstances came about. I don't know any facts that would justify Frank or his entoruage tearing down the damn house to stop drugs from being sold. The house wasn't being forfeited as a result of selling drugs and this requires a court proceeding before taking possession. I think the government is also saying Frank knew the law and knowingly violated it therefore vitiating or precluding any argument of not knowing the law or acting in good faith although possibly misinterpreting or misapplying the law (although ignorance of the law isn't usually a valid excuse anyway). Mooreover, the prosecution's argument seems to be that Frank's actions of ordering and/or participating in tearing down the house must be a result of some preempting or overiding concern beyond merely knowing or thinking the house was a drug house, such as his safety or the safety of others.

Walt

Nov 20 2008

There is law that says a person can't usually or ordinarily be precluded or forbidden from presenting a defense. Unless there is also clear law that says Melton can't argue lack of evil intent or evil motive the judge will likely have to cave in to some degree or risk getting reversed. So, look for Frank to be able to make his argument with some clear limitations or instructions about how it's to be used or interpreted in justaposition or consideration of the facts. This matter is the only thing keeping Frank in the water. If the judge decides against him, he has to plead or else take a lay down style butt kicking with all of us looking. I rather not see that although I know it will make many so happy to see it. He has earned it, but I still don't want to see it unless he forces me to.

Walt

Nov 20 2008

Evil intent was proven when Melton without a warrant, without probable cause, ordered a police officer to point a deadly weapon at a human being without cause. Melton selected the location and made the choice of selecting this location over dozens of other locations to get his 10 minutes in the news. Melton, left the location on Ridgeway Street then return to the location with several young men and intentionally destroyed this house all because he wanted to prove he was the man. The question we should be asking is what kind of human being is Melton when he goes all out his way to violate the rights of person with special needs!!! Melton knew that this man would not present a problem and he could use this man disabilities to boost his personal ego. EVIL intent? I wonder if Melton's attorney had one of his family members treated this way would he just say, "Oh no evil intent it was just a joke" or would he be filing lawsuit and criminal charges? THINK PEOPLE!!!!

Hot Sauce

Nov 20 2008

This whole argument that posters are following is a great example of Merida Coxwell"s prowess at getting an "evil intent" defense entered. There is no such defense. Intent is not a requirement of the crime he was accused of in state court, nor in federal. It was pure and simple jury nullification and the judge allowed it. Do not blame the defense counsel, they did what they were hired to do. The Judge... well there are other examples of him being open to public officials 'defenses' The legal question is did Melton order the destruction of a house without legal authority. It is clear he did. There was no warrant or court action and he ordered people to raid and then destroy the building. The question is whether he walks. I predict not. Reeves may have had 6 criminal trials in the last 10 years, and not one were federal. Every firm I know that Frank contacted ( 4) said Frank couldn't come up with the retainer needed to justify it(*between 40 to 100K), so Reeves either needs the publicity or the "promise" of favors if he beats it. He couldn't deliver any cash to anyone so he may be tapped out... And he is in the Hospital again.... Who knew

AGamm627

Nov 20 2008