I know, getcha the smelling salts, right? Well, last night I had from Brookhaven (Lincoln County), news of State of Mississippi v. Leggett, a murder case that began with the indictments of Michael Leggett, 33, and Mark Culbertson, 32, for the October 2006 beating death of 36-year-old Jewel Duane Douglas.
In this case, seems the office of 14th Circuit District Attorney Dewitt T. “Dee” Bates, Jr., went to great lengths to keep Leggett’s trial set in advance of Culbertson’s. Assistant DA Diane Jones repeatedly represented to the Court, the Defendants, their counsel, and the jury that Culbertson would be testifying against Leggett with no promised breaks in his trial or sentencing. Indeed, she continuously maintained that her office had no discretion in Culbertson’s sentence whatsoever, were he to be convicted of murder.
BUT. Once she and ADA Brendon Adams had Leggett convicted and sentenced to life behind bars (as an habitual offender with no chance of parole), they moved to amend Culbertson’s charge to manslaughter – to which Culbertson quickly pled guilty. At that sentencing, they stated that, while their office did not officially recommend a sentence, victim Douglas’s family had said they had no problem with five years. This apparently didn’t impress Circuit Judge Mike Taylor, though: he maxed Culbertson out — twenty years.
Leggett promptly moved for a new trial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, among other things. Following a hearing on the motion yesterday, Judge Taylor, citing at least eleven instances — this merely the most egregious — agreed and entered an order granting the new trial.
In his 14-page opinion (sorry, repeated faxings have messed with its legibility a bit), Taylor wrote that the "Constitutions, Rules of Professional Conduct, Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice, oaths, and even the most basic rules of decency and fair play were all trampled by the State. " (For all the good it may do) he’s referring the 14th Circuit DA’s office to the Mississippi Bar for discipline.
Here’s a bit of the opinion I particularly admire:
It has been said that there are two enemies of the orderly administration of justice. The first is violence, which in times of instability, can prevent courts from acting or corrupt them with fear. The other threat to courts is fraud or trickery which corrupts courts by misleading them. Schemes, tricks, and secret plans have no place in the prosecution of causes.
All defendants are entitled to a fair trial. The public also deserves fair trials. Law enforcement officers, attorneys, jurors and witnesses have an interest in knowing that trials are fair. Due process is not a formality. Trials are not games.
Here’s a fresh story from the McComb Enterprise-Journal with more quotes from others involved. Oh, and guess what otherwise-familiar name shows up here too? Yep, Dr. Stephen Hayne.
How do you like that? Don’t you wish things worked this way more often in other counties (cough *Hinds* cough) too?
UPDATE: The Brookhaven Daily Leader‘s new story includes some new information (Leggett’s new trial is set for September 2), a new spelling of the victim’s middle name (“Dewayne”) [an error, we later learned], and new quotes from Dee Bates:
District Attorney Dee Bates said Culbertson had been willing to cooperate all along, and that he had volunteered to testify without any discussion of lightening his sentence.
“Why was he so willing to do that, just to set the record straight?” Bates said. “I don’t know. Maybe that’s something attorneys can’t understand.”
Members of the DA’s office and Culbertson’s counsel David Linzey all stated that the plan to amend Culbertson’s charge to manslaughter wasn’t reached until the Sunday after Leggett’s conviction. …
“We don’t agree, but that’s the ruling,” he said. “We never made a deal. Culbertson said there was no deal, his attorney said there was no deal, both Brendon Adams and Diane Jones said there was no deal, and I said there was no deal.”
Bates said the decision to amend Culbertson’s indictment was based on talks with the Leggett jury members, Douglas’ family and Culbertson’s testimony on the record.
“If you take everything he said as true, he’s guilty of manslaughter, not murder,” he said. “If I had a crystal ball and could see everything that really happened, we wouldn’t need investigators.” …
“We represent the state and the Douglases,” he said. “The family is getting lost in all this, and that’s what disturbs me.”
More there.
Amen, Jane.
Wow! Another decent judge on the bench in this State!!! How refreshing!! How’d he get past the GOB’s?
"Why was he so willing to do that, just to set the record straight? " Bates said. "I don’t know. Maybe that’s something attorneys can’t understand. "
Sounds like Jack “Deep Thoughts” Handey: “What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a
solid gold baby? Maybe we’ll never know.”
Except one’s a comedian and the other is a public servant.
Jane, I had a couple of cases with Judge Taylor right after he took the bench. I forget the name of the judge he replaced (I’ve suppressed the memory because of that judge’s abusive nature) and he was a VERY welcome change. Judge Taylor is very knowledgeable of the law and procedure. But the most important thing is that he is highly concerned about “getting it right.” No matter what the outcome was, I had to agree with Judge Taylor’s decisions because they were right … even if they went against me. He is a credit to the bench, IMO.
Catfish: Mike Smith?
Catfish, I think that he replace Judge Mike Smith, who was no fan of the MS Supreme Court, if it was not him then it had to be US District Judge Keith Starrett.
Mike and i worked on a malpractice case together once and he was a great guy. didn’t know he was a judge (being from north miss.) but glad to see he’s getting it right.
does anyone have an opinion on Judge Gardner, Lee County Circuit Court? I’ve heard he is also concerned “with getting it right”. Any thoughts out there?
Pam, that RUMOR has been going around for a while But I wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole.
The “new” spelling on Duane Douglas’ name was my fault. I’m the reporter that wrote that story. I didn’t catch it when I spell checked, but thanks for pointing that out.
Stormy, can you clarify that rumor a teeny tiny, from about 10 feet away? I’m pretty good with distances. Thanks
Hi, Therese, and welcome to folo! What’s shakin’ around town this morning? How’s this news going down locally?
NOPE! I don’t do rumors.
Hi. Thanks! Not much around town today!
I had written a big response to your question, but based on the fact that I have to cover this, I had to delete it so as to not compromise my objectivity. I will say that sitting through the trial, Culbertson’s hearing, and the motion for a new trial gives you more perspective on the case than if you simply caught the wire story or that horrid tiny blurb in the Clarion-Ledger, or that Enterprise-Journal’s article that stated Judge Taylor “found the District Attorney’s office guilty of prosecutorial misconduct.” I avoided the word “guilty” because it is now up to the Bar Association to decide. Innocent until proven guilty. That’s how the system works, whether it’s for Michael Leggett or the District Attorney’s office. They made mistakes, granted, but many people involved with the case felt those mistakes were honest ones and could have been made by any prosecutor’s office.
I will say that I’m glad it’s up to the Mississippi Bar to decide on this and not me. I used to think I wanted to go to law school… this trial and all the ensuing fallout has changed my mind completely.
Lotus, have you followed pam’s link? There’s a story there worth thinking about.
soms 18, yep, I have . . . some time ago, actually.
Sorry. There’s so much going on here it’s hard to keep up with it all.
Hey, I need to update my post. I spoke with an informed source who knows WAY more about the process than me, and I’m wrong. I misunderstood the process. So yeah, go ahead and say they were found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct because they were. I was under the impression that it was a pending matter, but it’s not. According to my source:
Only the supreme court or the court of appeals can overturn the findings. They will only have that oportunity if an appeal is filed. The “case” does not go to the office of Disciplinary Counsel…. they merely review the incident and the conduct of the attorneys. The only way to challenge the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the order is for an appeal to be filed. Otherwise it is “a thing adjudicated”.
Therese 21, I’d be floored if you — or maybe your source — understood this correctly. As far as I can tell, all Judge Taylor did or could do was refer the DA’s office to the Bar Complaint Committee — thereby beginning a process that may or may not end in an adjudication.
I have to think that one of you misheard something — either the question or the answer — here.
That’s what I thought too… which is why I was so irritable about the use of the word “guilty.” But apparently the judge issues the findings and it’s sent up. Then if an appeal is requested is when the review kicks in, but not until.
It’s confusing. Another reason I’m glad I’m not going to law school.
If Hayne was involved in shady proceedings this recently, he obviously isn’t going to stop until he’s absolutely FORCED to. How can he be forced to stop?
Meanwhile, Tyler is going to the prom!
How can I learn more about what constitutes “prosecutorial misconduct”?
I am proud of MS for this.
GRAND news about Tyler, Virginia! See if you can get us a snapshot, okay?
But I’ll turn your two queries over to those better equipped to answer . . .
I think what Therese’s source explains is this:
Judge Taylor ruled, after a review of the facts before him, that the D.A.’s office committed prosecutorial misconduct in this case, State v. Leggett. (I do not know if there is an enunciated legal standard for such a finding; if there is, Judge Taylor did not state it in his opinion.) As a result of this ruling, he ordered a new trial. (Again, perhaps this is something that the law requires upon a showing of prosecutorial misconduct; that was not spelled out for us in the order).
It is THAT finding of misconduct, resulting in the order discussed, that can be overturned only on appeal.
Separate and apart from this finding, Judge Taylor referred the D.A.’s office and their actions to the MS Bar, so that the appropriate persons within the Bar Association can review the facts and make a determination as to whether the behavior involved merits some measure being taken with regard to the involved attorneys’ law licenses and/or positions of public trust.
That’s it. I’m pretty sure that’s how my source explained it.
Welcome to folo, unsure 26, and thanks for that good sorting-out!
Wondering about Tyler and prom, Virginia, will he have a tux? Can some good folk round up proper attire for him, if not?
He’s gonna have a tux
, he and his date will be going with two other couples, and they have rented a limo. I am so happy he’ll have this chance to live a bit of what he lost.
I’ll see if he’ll let me discretely share a photo or two.
Thanks for clarification on the prosecutorial misconduct. I saw an article about a year ago in the Minneapolis Tribune saying that they were going to town making prosecutors follow the rules down to the very last detail. That would be playing fair.
Way to go Mike! I mean Judge Taylor. It is a mark of incredible ethical conviction to take on a DA (One of any Countys most powerful elected official on anything) less a murder conviction on anything like this.
I only wish we had more Judges like that.
Glad you mentioned that, I4a, because it reminds me of a question I had yesterday, after somebody sent me this from the Bar registry:
What’s the story here? You telling me this dude’s only been a lawyer for eight years? Or he moved to MS from somewhere else (uh, why?)?
Either way, how’s he end up District Attorney of District 14???
Virginia @ 21 re: Hayne -
There are several scenarios, but this is the most likely, and it’ll take a trial judge with guts:
The judge will have to decide that Hayne should not be received as an expert. More likely than not, that will happen when a (criminal) defense-oriented judge (and yeah, there are a couple out there) determines that Hayne does not follow reliable principles and methods. If the judge makes that determination, Hayne won’t be able to testify in that case. That won’t preclude Hayne from testifying in other cases, but it will provide cover to other judges who refuse to accept him as an expert in future cases.
Sorry if that rambles a touch. Got distracted midway through, and now I have to leave before I can amend.
Thank you very much, olemisstriallawyer. I have been trying to get an answer to this question for a long time now. To a non-attorney, what you are suggesting to stop Hayne
seems like what an honorable and intelligent judge would automatically do. The judge should not have to be (criminal) defense-oriented but simply justice-oriented like 99% of the public believes they are. If this would be a “bold” move for a judge, then the problem is much, much worse than I thought (and what I thought was enough to make me want to leave the state). In Tyler’s trial, they put the expert psychologist through a full day Daubert hearing and the judge (wrongly in my opinion) precluded her from testifying. That’s a bad judge, and he was rightfully smacked by the MS Supreme Court with one of the specifics being the use of Hayne. You’d expect that to make it a little easier for other judges to be a little “bolder.” Why does this scenario seem to be screaming out the word conspiracy? It feels like a conspiracy because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What is the REAL deal here???? I am hoping for a flow chart, along the lines of the one accompanying the Raw story. What’s the motivation for judges to be so lacking in boldness?
Virginia//Must tell you what I heard this morning on the radio. Paul Gallo interveiwed someone from Reason Magazine on how or what Mississippi is gonna do about Hayne. You could email Reason and talk to him(sorry I didnot get his name) But it appears Hayne’s number is up, and Reason said it would be hard to get him out because now he is one of the GOBS’ and Hayne would not wan’t to give it up because of all of the money invoved. Each DA will have to quit using him, because he is writing it the way the DA IS TELLING HIM HE SEES’ IT. Good luck..
I’m almost certain this would have to be Radley Balko. Problem is, he never e-mails back unless you have info that will help him out. I will beg him for an update, though. What is the likelihood that individual DA’s will just stop using Hayne? Seems pretty doubtful if this is how they win their cases when they don’t have any evidence. Seems to me though, one of the medical boards was investigating Hayne and said they would announce results in the spring. Also, a member of the House of Reps was urging the legislature to hire a state medical examiner, but I didn’t hear the result of that. This REALLY shouldn’t be THAT hard. Does Ted Kennedy know about this you suppose? Seems like the kind of guy who would do something about it.
This is not about prosecutorial misconduct, but rather defense misconduct. Yesterday, in NC, they let a man go who had been on death row for 15 years. Poor guy didn’t know he was going home until 10 mins. before they opened the doors and let him out. Apparently, during his appeals, it was learned that the police investigator withheld info and the defense failed to interview critical witnesses. The judge threw the conviction out and then the DA said there wasnt enough evidence to retry him. I don’t believe this man was helped by the Innocence Project and therefore he wouldn’t be in line for all the things they do for their exonerees. I wonder what happens to someone like him. One of these defense attorneys was involved in two other cases challenged in court. One of these men was executed in 2001.
The (McComb) Enterprise-Journal reports here that the D.A.’s office has filed a Motion to Reconsider and a Motion to Recuse Judge Taylor in this case.
That’s nice. The man who showed remorse for the crime is doing 20 years (despite what the family of the victim wants), and the one who didn’t show any remorse could get away with it because the judge doesn’t like the DA (and yes, that IS the truth, and that IS what this is all about). You’ve got to love the legal system. Congratulations, Judge Taylor, you’ve made me disgusted enough in the legal system to not want to go to law school…
Hey Truthful, this case has made me not want to go to law school anymore too, and I grew up in a prosecutor’s house. But I sat through the whole case and all the subsequent motions and hearings, and I think the thing about it is that I’m not disgusted, I’m sad. I respect all the people involved in this situation greatly. From working with them, I hold all of them in the highest regard. We’re talking about some people who are dedicated to their job and to the truth, and we’re talking about different perspectives.
I used to want to grow up and be a prosecutor, and then a judge, but now I’m happy to just be a journalist, because I do have to remain impartial, but I’ll never have to make the tough decisions and fight the hard fights that all the people in this case have had to.
People keep telling me to “call ‘em like I see ‘em,” and I’ll tell you what I see. This is hard for everyone. There doesn’t seem to be a black or a white, it seems to all be gray area. And this is where you just sit back and watch, because when good people are at odds, it makes other good people heartsick. Unfortunately, it’s going to happen sometimes because of the state of human nature.
Don’t blame Judge Taylor, and don’t blame the DA’s office. This is unfortunate for everyone, but it has yet to play out. Cast your aspersions and throw around the blame when there’s an answer.
Nice to have you back, Therese. Will you have a new story for us this afternoon?
Yeah, I’m sitting here working on it now, with all that egg on my face. The Enterprise Journal scooped me big time, and I feel a bit dumb, but such is the newspaper business. Should be on the web a little after lunch, I think.
Goody, thanks.
Therese, the McComb paper misses something big in not explaining the motion to recuse the judge.
What possible basis does the DA have for that? Being upset at an adverse ruling isn’t a basis.
They’re holding that the Judge is showing bias, basically. They said they felt he had already made up his mind before he heard their argument on the day of the motion. They cite the fact that the 14-page opinion took only 20-30 minutes to write and the fact that in spite of all the testimony, the court still would not believe there was not a deal with Culbertson, which was the main cause they believe the verdict was overturned.
Basically a lot of this is that the Judge has stated a belief that they weren’t truthful, and they are firing back with the belief that he wasn’t fair.
It’s going to be interesting (and painful) to watch.
That’s no better than “we lost”, Therese, and a non-prosecutor would be flirting seriously with sanctions for filing a recusal motion based on that.
It’s going to be a long 4 years for that DA.
Here’s our story now that it’s on the web. And no, his new trial is not Sept. 32. It’s Sept. 2. Ugh.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19471265&BRD=1377&PAG=461&dept_id=172922&rfi=6
Thanks, Therese. Bet your copy-editor’s hoping for no guns in the workplace (if not for Sept 32 then for “opposing council”). One of them kinda days, whatcanIsay . . .
Haha… yeah, I never throw stones about typos, but I do want to say that “opposing council” is my fault (I don’t typo in EVERY STORY EVER, just the ones that are going to be reposted on a bulletin board full of very smart people), but the new trial date was added when I had turned in the story and was asked, “When’s the new trial, Sept. 3?” and I said, “No, Sept. 2.”
Pick up the paper, and there it is. Sept. 32. Well, I guess he’ll be waiting a while for a new trial, huh?