8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

1/10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPICAUSE NO. 2015-M-397

IN RE: THE OFFICE OF THE HINDS COUNTY PUBLICE F E N F ~

lEDPETITIONER

MAR 5 2 15

OFF 1cE OF THE CLERKSUPREME COURT

COURT OF PPE LS

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER S MOTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITIONCONCERNING TRIAL COURT RECORD AND RESPONSE IN LIMITED

OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER S MOTION T CONSOLIDATE

COMES NOW JudgeJeff

Weill, Sr., Hinds County Circuit Court Judge, and files this

brief response to two motions filed on March 19,2015 by the Petitioner (Petitioner is used here

for the Hinds County Public Defender s Office HCPDO and its involved employees), 1 and in

support, the undersigned states to this Honorable Court as follows:

On March 19 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Writ o f Prohibition (Motion# 2015-

1253), which seeks action by this Court concerning the undersigned s criminal docket, and a

Motion for Consolidation (Motion# 2015-1254), which seeks to consolidate fifty-five (55)

separate currently pending appeals, all of which were filed pursuant to MRAP 48B upon a denial

of a Motion for Judicial Recusa/ by the undersigned in each case. In this response, the

undersigned does not intend to offer any additional information or argument concerning the

merits of the underlying appeals, as the undersigned has not been directed to do so by this

Honorable Court, per MRAP 2l(d). Instead, the undersigned files this response to I) submit a

complete record of trial court proceedings concerning the direct criminal contempt findings

1 The undersigned notes that the HCPDO listed eight (8) individual defendants as additionally named Petitionersrelated to the Motion for Writ o f Prohibition No attorney from the HCPDO has been appointed to represent any ofthose defendants in the circuit coun. Accordingly, the undersigned does not address those individuals as Petitionersin his response herein.

MOTION 2 151J SJ

J

2 15 u tr

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

2/10

referenced in the Motion or rit o Prohibition and (2) submit limited opposition concerning

the Petitioner' s Motion or Consolidation as inconsistent with procedural precedent.

A. The Complete Trial Court Record Concerning Petitioner s Claims n the Motion or

Writ o Prohibition

The Petitioner, apparently aggrieved that this Honorable Court has not granted the relief that

they have requested (and continue to request) in no less than fifty-eight (58) filings with this

Honorable Court, gathered in the undersigned's courtroom on March 16, 2015 and staged a

protest o sorts during a routine criminal arraignment docket in a clear attempt to frustrate the

orderly administration o justice, complete with a dress code and bursts o applause from the

audience after the undersigned exited the courtroom. Petitioner alerted the news media prior to

the docket and assembled a standing-room only crowd (the largest ever present during any

arraignment docket in this court) consisting mostly o state and county attorney employees and

support staff, to voice their objection to an issue which remains pending before this Honorable

Court on appeal.

The Hinds County Public Defender's Office has refused to participate during the

undersigned's arraignment docket since September 15 2014. Despite this policy and pattern o

behavior, the entire office o the HCPDO (consisting o at least fourteen (14) attorneys and

support staff, and a law-student intern) attended the docket. Nothing was presented to the trial

court prior to the scheduled docket concerning any alleged lower court representation o any

Defendant scheduled for arraignment. During the court proceedings, the insolent behavior o

Public Defender Michele Purvis-Harris and Assistant Public Defender Greg Spore (the nature o

which is most ascertainable in the audio files o Exhibit C attached hereto) resulted in the

undersigned's in-court finding that each was in direct criminal contempt o court which resulted

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

3/10

in a fine of 100.00 for each attorney. Ms. Harris and Mr. Spore both paid their contempt fines

in a timely manner the next day.

In the Writ o rohibition filed on March 19, 2015, the Petitioner raises the undersigned's

contempt findings in support of the rel ief requested therein. t is unclear whether the Petitioner

intends for the motion to also serve as an appeal of the contempt rulings, which the individuals

(Ms. Harris and Mr. Spore) are certainly entitled to seek. To the undersigned's knowledge, no

notice o f appeal has been filed concerning the contempt rulings, but the same are alleged as error

in the instant Petition. Accordingly, the undersigned submits relevant items from the trial court

record in order to fully inform this Honorable Court concerning the pertinent circumstances of

the court proceedings on March 16,2015, as itemized below.

Pursuant to MRAP 2 (c) which governs the relief sought, Petitioner was required to submit

certified copies of any order or opinion or parts of the record which may be essential to an

understanding of the matters set forth in the petition, but Petitioner failed to submit anything

except for a partial March 16,2015 court docket. Accordingly, the undersigned provides herein

for this Court's consideration all parts of the record relevant to the referenced contempt

proceedings, as follows:

Exhibit A- The March 16, 2015 Criminal Court Docket

Exhibit B The March 16,2015 transcript of the contempt related proceedings

Exhibit C- The March 16,2015 audio recording of the official court reporter of the

contempt related proceedings including the contemptuous conduct resulting in punishment

Exhibit D The trial court's two March 17, 2015 Orders concerning the contempt issue

Exhibit E The two March 17, 2015 Notices of Satisfaction filed by the attorneys

3

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

4/10

Exhibit F The trial court's March 23, 2015 order supplementing the trial court record with

the transcript and the audio.

B. Trial Court s Limited Opposition to Petitioner s Motion or Consolidation

On February 24 2015 and February 25 2015 the Petitioner filed a total of fifty-five (55)

appeals involving individual criminal defendants, all of whom have pending felony indictments

on the undersigned's docket. Each of the defendants (some of whom are incarcerated) have

unadjudicated charge(s) before the undersigned which carry applicable legal rights to counsel, to

a speedy trial and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations pursuant to the

primary authority cited by the Petitioner- the 6 h Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The appeals each seek relief per MRAP 488 and under MRAP 21(c), and the Petitioner has

made fifty-five requests for additional time to supplement the brief filed n each appeal and for a

trial court stay in each case. Rather than filing a proposed supplement, Petitioner has made three

more filings before this Honorable Court in No. 2015-M-357, all of which essentially tell this

Court to hurry up by repeated requests for emergency action for individual or blanket trial

court stays. Based on the latest filing, the HCPDO now seeks a trial court stay in sixty-three 63)

individual criminal defendants' cases, despite the fact that the HCPDO has never been appointed

in the circuit court to represent thirty-five (35) of these individuals- making standing (or a lack

thereof) a question in more than half of the cases before the appellate court. Importantly, many

of the defendants are duly represented by other, qualified attorneys who are proceeding per the

undersigned's appointment 2 at the request of the respective defendants, and the HCPDO seeks to

indefinitely delay the adjudication of those matters as well.

2 Notably, no Defendant through his appropriately appointed counsel has joined the Petitioner's Motion s) orRecusal or subsequent appeal(s).

4

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

5/10

Just as the Petitioner filed substantively identical Motions for Recusal in each case (many

times including general, procedurally erroneous statements), the Petitioner also filed dozens of

nearly-identical appeals, all of which seek the same relief. After the fifty-five appeals were filed,

Hinds County Public Defender Michele Purvis-Harris sent a letter to the appellate court

explaining her categorization of the cases involved into three areas which she designates

essentially as: I) cases where the HCPDO has never been appointed in the circuit court; 2) cases

where the entire office of HCPDO was removed and prohibited from continuing as counsel for

violations of the grand jury secrecy requirements in URCCC 7.04; and 3 cases which were once

assigned to Assistant HCPD Alison Kelly and reassigned to other appointed counsel after no new

public defender was designated by Ms. Harris, based the undersigned's reliance on his

interpretation of applicable statutory authority for the same. In the undersigned's opinion, Ms.

Harris's February 27 2015 letter with her explanation of the distinctions in the categories of

cases should be viewed as a concession that the issues before the appellate courts are not issues

which are identical, nor can the issues be resolved by an expansive general request, thus making

consolidation inapplicable. See generally Estate o f Johnson ex rei Shaw v Grace/and Care Ctr

of Oxford, LLC, 41 So. 3d 692, 693 (Miss. 20 I 0) (explaining that cases which were consolidated

for purposes of appeal involve identical issues of act nd law. .

Further, the Motion for Consolidation refers to the Motion for Writ of Prohibition, which was

also filed on March 19, 2015 and alleges that eight additional defendants who were arraigned on

March 16, 2015 should be subject to appellate review as well. The Motion for Consolidation

erroneously alleges that because the circuit court failed to allow the Public Defender to

represent (these eight cases] at arraignment . . . , then the constitutional issues before this Court

are the same in these eight cases as the originally filed fifty-five cases, it is further in the interest

5

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

6/10

o udicial economy for this Court to consolidate all o these cases. Motion at para. 4. This is

misleading, as Public Defender Harris has never represented anyone at arraignment, and thus has

never been refused to do so until she was out o order on March 16 2015. Furthermore, four o

the eight defendants listed within the Motion or Writ o Prohibition were not set for arraignment

on March 16,2015, but rather were set for a status conference regarding their retention o private

counsel. These four defendants were previously arraigned by the undersigned, during which

time the HCPDO did not appear or attempt to appear on behalf o any o these defendants.

As mentioned supra for a six (6) month period prior to March 16 2015, the assistant public

defenders assigned to this court refused to participate during arraignments. On September15

2014, this court was informed during the arraignment docket o a change in the HCPDO policy

in which their office would no longer participate in arraignments without pre-appointment o the

HCPDO by the circuit court. Immediately following their announcement on September 15

2014, Assistant Public Defenders Alison Kelly and Michael Henry remained in the courtroom

and observed the arraignment docket, while the this court relied on the assistance o private

attorneys to stand in for unrepresented clients at arraignment, including those who were

previously represented by the HCPDO at either the county court or municipal court level. The

court has since conducted approximately six (6) arraignment dockets involving dozens o cases,

and no efforts have been made by the HCPDO to participate, until the trial court denied the

motions for recusal.

Most recently, Public Defender Harris requested a meeting with the undersigned, to which

the undersigned agreed. The purpose o Ms. Harris' request was unknown to the undersigned,

but the undersigned agreed to the meeting in the spirit o cooperation. During the meeting, held

in the undersigned's chambers on March 24, 2015, the main issue addressed by Ms. Harris was

6

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

7/10

the arraignment policy of her office. Twice Ms. Harris denied that her office had previously

represented a refusal to participate in arraignments, which is directly contrary to the

announcement made by the assistant public defenders in court on September 15,2014. See

Exhibit G, Transcript of September 15, 2014 announcement; and Exhibit H, Transcript of

March 24, 2015 meeting at pg. ; 4. 3

While consolidation may be requested in an effort to expedite resolution of this matter

(which this judge does not oppose), the fact remains that each case is extraordinarily

procedurally distinct and fact determinative, and they cannot all be lumped together simply

because the Petitioneris

getting impatient. The legal issues differ as well, and each Defendant

is entitled to individual consideration. Therefore, the undersigned respectfully submits that the

appeals are not appropriate for consolidation, at least as to certain issues as further explained,

3 Assistant Public Defender Michael Henry on September 15 2014:

By Mr. Henry: Two things, Your Honor. I believe Mr. Ball has been arraigned. Secondly-- this is coming frommy boss. I believe she's not wanting us to stand in with the defendants unless they have already been appointed to

us. I jus t heard this this morning, but it's coming from the top at my office.

By the Coun: All right. Weill know the arraignments have been set for quite a while not, and you're telling methe new policy, which you're telling me at arraignment this morning, of the public defender's office is that they arenot going to stand in at arraignment as they've customarily done for the last three and a half years? Is that whatyou're telling me?

By Mr. Henry: To answer your question, Your Honor, yes, sir.

ee September 15 2014 Transcript, at 2-3.

Public Defender Michele Purvis-Harris on March 24, 2015:

By Ms. Harris: It is not our policy that we won't participate in arraignments

By Ms. Harris: I have never said that we would not do arraignments so I want to make that clear That's not ourposition. We will do arraignments.

ee March 24 2015 Transcript, at 2; 3.

7

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

8/10

infra. In addition, the undersigned respectfully submits that there is no applicable legal authority

for consolidation here. The provision for consolidation of appeals is found in MRAP 3(b)

concerning appeals of right. The appeals filed by Peti tioner involve MRAP Rules 48B and 21,

both of which follow MRAP 5 interlocutory appeals by permission, i f granted. Certainly, this

Honorable Court has discretion in appellate procedure, but the undersigned respectfully argues

that at least one aspect of the issues before this Court prohibits consolidation, in toto. Based on

the undersigned's reading of the pending appellate filings by Petitioner, it appears that the

Petitioner seeks judicial recusal in cases where Assistant Public Defender Alison Kelly is

counsel of record. See generally Conclusion section of the fifty-five appeals filed per MRAP

48B. The undersigned's limited objection to consolidation of this issue is as follows:

Should this Honorable Court determine that it will require further briefing and consider this

Cour t's ruling concerning any or all of the fifty-five Motions or Judicial Recusal the

undersigned contends that further consideration of the trial court 's decision would necessarily

also require separate consideration of the unique procedural history o f each case to determine

whether Alison Kelly was counsel of record. The undersigned avers that Ms. Kelly was never

counsel of record in at least twenty-seven (27) cases, and it is unknown whether Ms. Kelly

contends that she served as counsel of record in a lower court proceeding in other cases or

whether someone else in her office filled that role. f Ms. Kelly was not personally involved in

other cases, then it is certainly also accurate that she would not have been counsel of record,

but again, individual consideration of the procedural status of each case would be necessary for

this determination. Accordingly, inasmuch that consolidation would negate the Court 's ability to

separately consider the procedural history in each case and the individually analyzed legal issues

8

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

9/10

in the undersigned's fifty-five written opinions on appeal, the undersigned respectfully opposes

the Motion or Consolidation.

The Petitioner filed fifty-five motions requesting judicial recusal, the trial court carefully

considered the same and issued fifty-five detailed written opinions, which required considerable

time and effort. The Petitioner sought individual review of fifty-five opinions filed in fifty-five

unrelated criminal cases. Now, the Petitioner who has exhibited a focus on making incomplete

representations about this matter in various filings and other outlets, seems anxious to have relief

summarily granted, based on similar erroneous and/or incomplete facts and an incomplete

record, rather than recognizing that the filings related to this issue are voluminous and will

require the appellate court time to review, just as the issues required considerable time for the

parties to submit and the trial court to rule on.

Lastly concerning procedure, the undersigned notes that he has not responded to any of

Petitioner's appellate filings with the subject exception herein. 4 Of course, the undersigned will

comply with any directive to file a response or to provide further information if needed. In sum,

the undersigned requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the appeals for the grounds stated in

the undersigned's rulings on the same, or in the alternative, to consider the certified portions of

the trial court record related to the Motion/or rit o Prohibition and for an order denying the

Motion to Consolidate at least as it pertains to this Honorable Cour t's separate consideration of

the individual procedural history of each case, including whether Alison Kelly was ever counsel

of record and the trial court 's findings concerning the same.

4 The undersigned recognizes that he flied a letter on February 27 2015 in many of the cases on appeal, however,thatlener and the attached sealed exhibit was not a formal response to the petitions, but rather was filed so that thisHonorable Court would have a complete copy of the undersigned's order which was appealed y the Petitioner.

8/9/2019 Judge Weill Brief to Mississippi Supreme Court

10/10

Respectfully submitted this the 25th day of March, 2015

L SR.

UNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

CERTIFIC TE OF SERVICE

I Jeff Weill, Sr., the undersigned judge, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of

Response to Petitioner s rit o Prohibition and Motion or Consolidation, along with the

exhibits thereto, has been this day forwarded to Petitioner Hinds County Public Defender s

Office c/o Michele Purvis-Harris, via inter-office county mail as follows:

Public Defender Michele Purvis-HarrisHinds County Public Defender s Office

499 S. President St.Jackson, MS 39201

This the 25th day of March, 2015.

Weill, Sr.inds County Circuit Judge

1