Court: Judge Weill Can Continue Hiring Private Attorneys for Public Defense | Jackson Free Press | Jackson, MS

Court: Judge Weill Can Continue Hiring Private Attorneys for Public Defense

The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the Hinds County Board of Supervisors' appeal to remove Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Jeff Weill from hearings about his appointment of private attorneys to represent criminal defendants instead of the Hinds County Public Defender's Office.

The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the Hinds County Board of Supervisors' appeal to remove Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Jeff Weill from hearings about his appointment of private attorneys to represent criminal defendants instead of the Hinds County Public Defender's Office. Photo by Imani Khayyam.

— Hinds County Circuit Judge Jeff Weill can continue hiring private attorneys instead of public defenders in criminal cases before him, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled this week.

The Hinds County Board of Supervisors, which is responsible for paying for the private attorneys, appealed to the state's high court to stop Weill from substituting public defenders with attorneys, which brings additional costs to the board." This matter involves payment of fees by Petitioner (Hinds County Board of Supervisors), to private attorneys acting as court-appointed public defenders," the petition states. "Prior to 2015, Judge Weill began appointing private counsel as court-appointed public defenders, although Hinds County maintains a full-time public defenders' office."

Calls to the public defenders office were not returned by press time.

Weill continued to appoint private attorneys, the petition states, until May 21, 2015, when the Supreme Court ordered that a hearing be held to determine whether his appointments were "unnecessary" and "whether the compensation is appropriate."

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the board states that on March 1 and June 14, Weill held hearings on the matter, even allowing the board to voice its objections. And then on July 12, Weill decided not to recuse himself and ruled that the appointments were warranted.

The board ultimately asked the court to help them establish if and how much they owed for the services of the attorneys involved.

"The only circumstance that has changed," the board's petition states, "since entry of the previous Recusal Order is the Board of Supervisor's efforts, ultimately to no avail, to ascertain its financial exposure resulting from the appointments in question. The Board still does not know the number of unnecessary appointments (sic) or its alleged financial exposure."

Neither Weill or the board attorney returned calls by press time.

Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

comments powered by Disqus