Today’s proceedings in the trial of Mayor Frank Melton and police officers Marcus Wright and Michael Recio began at 8:30 a.m., with the judge and attorneys for both side discussing instructions that would be given to the jury. At 10:00 a.m., the jury was called in and the judge read the instructions for nearly 45 minutes.
Perhaps the most important instruction concerned the definition of the word “malicious,” which was defined as encompassing “ill will, wickedness of disposition, cruelty, recklessness or a mind regardless of social duty.” The defense had argued that the jury should find “evil intent” in the actions of the defendants; late in the closing arguments, A.D.A. Stanley Alexander brought up these instructions, pointing out that the words “evil intent” were not in them.
During the instructions, Judge Webster also said that the jury will have to bring back separate verdicts for all 11 counts on separate sheets of paper.
Closing arguments in the trial began at around 11 a.m. and ended around 12:30 p.m.
Assistant District Attorney Dewey Arthur began closing arguments for the prosecution. He said that the defendants’ argument was that the laws are discretionary and don’t apply to them. He also said despite talk of Evans Welch being “the great satan,” of 1305 Ridgeway Street, police had little to show from their repeat visits. “They show you a roach, a pipe and less than a half ounce of proof,” he said, referring to cocaine seized from Ridgeway.
He said that proof the officers were not acting under authority of law was that they brought sledgehammers: “I’ve never seen police officers walking down the street with standard-issue sledgehammers.” He said that the defense’s contention that they showed no ill will was disproved by the fact that they dumped paint all over the stove. He also spoke of how “the Wood Street Players” came off the Mobile Command Center and chanted, “We’re Wood Street, tearing up Virden.”
The first attorney to speak for the defense was Robert Smith, who represents Marcus Wright. Smith questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, and tried to tease out contradictions. More than anything, however, he said that his client had acted with good intentions. “You can find their good intent, their good heart, in the fact that citizens complained about the house.” He described the defendants as “brave men with good hearts” who, he said, were put on trial because they tried to fight crime. Senior Assistant D.A. Stanley Alexander made many objections during Smith’s statement, most of which were sustained.
Winston Thompson, representing Michael Recio, also questioned the credibility of witnesses, saying for instance that Yolanda Allen’s testimony contradicted itself. He said it was not really a criminal case, and that Jennifer Sutton (owner of the duplex) could bring a civil case to recover damages. He made much of the fact that a witness accused Recio of tearing down the awning of the duplex, saying that the awning was still standing in some photos. He also pointed out that prosecutors never brought Evans Welch to the stand. “Where’s Bubba?” he asked, “Don’t you think we should hear from Evans Welch?”
Merrida Coxwell spoke for Melton. He said that one thread runs through all the charges, and that’s that to merit convictions, the defendants had to have acted willfully and maliciously. He pointed to the small amount of crack that Arthur had mentioned, and said, “It takes that much crack to start a flame that will destroy a house … and an entire neighborhood.”
Coxwell admitted that the mayor may have been frustrated and referred to eyewitness testimony that the mayor said, “This #### has got to stop.” He acknowledged that the mayor’s methods were unorthodox, but he said that something had to be done about crack. He also argued that Sutton could pursue civil action. Then he handed off the closing statement for Frank Melton to former Jackson Mayor Dale Danks.
Danks began: “Quite honestly, I was astonished when my friend, Frank Melton, was indicted … but I was really astonished by what I’ve seen and heard in this trial.” Danks said that the prosecution’s own witnesses proved that 1305 Ridgeway is a drug house. He said that the prosecutors have had to “defend the existence of a crack house in this city.” Alexander objected to this and the judge sustained.
Danks said that the prosecution had failed to make its case, and that the defendants were being punished for fighting crime. “(Melton) finds himself on trial for trying to rid this community of drugs. That’s an injustice…the wrong people have been brought to trial in this case.” At the end of Dank’s statement, some members of the audience burst into applause, and Judge Webster asked for his gavel.
The final closing statement came from A.D.A Alexander. He said that in the United States, no one is above the law. He said it took Mississippi a long time to get to that place, but that it would remain that way as long as he was a prosecutor. “It’s time we let that kind of behavior go in this state, in this country … people marched, people fought, people died for their rights.”
He addressed the crack house argument: “I keep hearing the words ‘crack house,’ ‘crack house,’ ‘crack house.’ If you look at these instructions you will not find the words ‘crack house’ in there.” He said that a civil case was beside the point, because you shouldn’t be able to pay your way out of breaking the law. He pointed out that much of the damage to the duplex was done while Welch was already sitting outside on the sidewalk in handcuffs; what then, he argued, was the point in tearing up the house?
He also referenced the “Wood Street Players,” and their chant about Virden and said, “How are you espousing good will when you have one neighborhood set against another?” Soon after, he said, “How can you possibly uphold the law when you’re breaking it?”
He concluded with a bit of theatrics from the film “A Time to Kill.” He asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine that the defendants were not city officials, but just ordinary citizens. He asked them treat the defendants the same way they would other citizens.
At present, the jury is in deliberations.
Previous Comments
If nothing else, this was my favorite: “He said that a civil case was beside the point, because you shouldn’t be able to pay your way out of breaking the law.” Honestly. That is what this is about. Rich people paying with money, and poor people paying with life.
#128144 | Author: LawClerk | Date: Apr 26 2007
That was good lawclerk. One of my favorites, too.
#128145 | Author: Ray Carter | Date: Apr 26 2007
LawClerk that is a wonderful quote. You should have given that quote to Alexander.
#128146 | Author: thetruth | Date: Apr 26 2007
Really, the Prosicution put on a good case. I know that a lot of time, thought and energy was put into it and this readiness guarded them against a lot of pitt-falls to include a possible mis-trial. If every verdict comes back “not guilty,” the PROSICUTION AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE WISHED, PRAYED, FOUGHT AND BLOGGED FOR JUSTICE have absolutly nothing to feel bad about. We will just know that we continue to live in the DARK AGES and as the favorite quote of the day goes: RICH PEOPLE PAYING WITH MONEY AND POOR PEOPLE PAYING……… I “REST” my case. I’m going to bed.
#128147 | Author: justjess | Date: Apr 26 2007
But befor I go, what’s going on at Tougaloo? There were three students killed who were students there.
#128148 | Author: justjess | Date: Apr 26 2007
Two Tougaloo student living off campus were killed and a third young man was killed, too. The single killing isn’t related to the double killings. I don’t know yet what exactly brough about the killing of the Tougaloo kids. I know the mother of the 33 year old and will likely attend his funeral.
#128149 | Author: Ray Carter | Date: Apr 26 2007
I hope this goes as best as possible… I don’t know what that is….
#128150 | Author: optimisticaboutNewJackCity | Date: Apr 26 2007
He also referenced the “Wood Street Players,” and their chant about Virden and said, “How are you espousing good will when you have one neighborhood set against another?” Soon after, he said, “How can you possibly uphold the law when you’re breaking it?” Mmm-hmm. Why is it so hard for people to understand that? He concluded with a bit of theatrics from the film “A Time to Kill.” He asked jurors to close their eyes and imagine that the defendants were not city officials, but just ordinary citizens. He asked them treat the defendants the same way they would other citizens. When he asked them to close their eyes, I thought he was going to ask them to imagine someone tearing up their homes.
#128151 | Author: LatashaWillis | Date: Apr 26 2007
WLBT is reporting that the jury came back in to ask the judge a question.
#128152 | Author: pikersam | Date: Apr 26 2007
Who do the (smart) attorneys out there think about the time it’s taking the jury so far? Predictable? Is there conventional wisdom that applies?
#128153 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Apr 26 2007
When he asked them to close their eyes, I thought he was going to ask them to imagine someone tearing up their homes. The real “Time to Kill” question would be to ask them to imagine Melton and the bodyguards doing that to a house in Eastover with cocaine inside. I can understand why he didn’t, though. 😉
#128154 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Apr 26 2007
The question they asked? What’s for dinner? 😉
#128155 | Author: pikersam | Date: Apr 26 2007
Brian just called to confirm that the jury did ask a question of the judge, but media weren’t able to hear what the question was and he’s not certain that we’ll be told what the question was. Deliberations do continue and Brian was inclined to believe they could go on into the evening.
#128156 | Author: Todd Stauffer | Date: Apr 26 2007
The length of time usually means they are leaning towards an acquittal or more likely I think that they will hang. But you never know they may convict on some charges & acquit on the rest. I think it was Judge DeLaughter who said in his book “if the jury is out a short time thats good for the prosecution, if the are out a long time thats bad.”
#128157 | Author: snowjob | Date: Apr 26 2007
Four hours is a short time for a jury. I’m still hopeful. I’d love to be able to shop in Jackson again.
#128158 | Author: Lady Havoc | Date: Apr 26 2007
I thought Stanley was going to ask them to imagine it were their houses, a clearly objectionable thing to do, but I would have done it anyway. The jury would have still gotten the message even though the judge would have sustained the objection. Stanley had a good idea with this. I don’t know if it worked. Clearly, I’m not one of the smart attorneys, but I have had jurors deliberate for couple of days and they still found my client guilty. The longer they deliberate the better the defense feels about their performance and chances. They aver someone is fighting for an acquittal against those arguing for guilty verdicts. Quick verdicts scare the hell out of both sides, especially the defense. In this case, they have to render 11 verdicts so it may take a while. The defendants are clearly guilty (I can’t see how they can be debating that), nullification or forgiveness is the only way the defendants can escape.
#128159 | Author: Ray Carter | Date: Apr 26 2007
Ray’s right about quick verdicts scaring the hell out of the defense. It usually means a “guilty” verdict. Four hours is a long time but the do have alot to weigh. I think that they are probably debating nullification & thats why I am more inclined to think that the jury will hang.
#128160 | Author: snowjob | Date: Apr 26 2007
Right, it’s 11 different verdicts, right? That could take a while, regardless.
#128161 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Apr 26 2007
I’ve seen jurors that ask how long they have to stay out to get coffee, (I KNEW my guy was going to jail) and I have seen them stay out a day and convict. Usually long is bad for prosecutors though. However This is a complicated case. My guess: hung jury, it only takes 1. If they convict I guess it will be a compromise. (i.e. acquit on the serious and convict on what the jury perceives as a lessor charge) AGamma627
#128162 | Author: AGamm627 | Date: Apr 26 2007
Anybody want to sing campfire songs while we wait? Wanna lead, Ray?
#128163 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Apr 26 2007
Lets sing a good prison song. Like Midnight Special, just for Frank. LOL.
#128164 | Author: Ole Miss Alum | Date: Apr 26 2007
Or Folsom Prison Blues.
#128165 | Author: Ole Miss Alum | Date: Apr 26 2007
Bye, y’all. Keep the faith in Jackson, all. It’s important to remember that the city has come a long way, and our current malady is part of our growing pains. Let it make us stronger regardless of the verdict. Later.
#128166 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Apr 26 2007
You humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic while you say that ladd? LOL.
#128167 | Author: Ole Miss Alum | Date: Apr 26 2007
I’ve got a better one than that but it’s an oldie. “Nine Pound Steel”, by Joe Simon. It’s about a prisoner singing about slinging the nine pound steel which is a sledge hammer. lol
#128168 | Author: thetruth | Date: Apr 26 2007
First Democratic debate begins at 6 on MSNBC. You might want to sing “Happy Days are Here Again.”
#128169 | Author: jasp | Date: Apr 26 2007
Growing pains? Seems more like shrinking pains to me! I don’t get to riot in the steeets if Frankie goes free, but I do plan to step up my timeline for leaving South Jackson. That’s right, nothing I have seen in Jackson scares me as bad as government out of control. I can protect myelf from the other citizens, but what do you do when a guy with a badge points a gun at you? Even if you win the fight you lose. Danno (Actually, at least a hung jury will mean we had an honest group. I can live with that.)
#128170 | Author: Danno | Date: Apr 26 2007
Recent Immigration Stories
The Mississippi Free Press produced this story through the MFP Solutions Lab, supported by the Solutions Journalism Network. This series digs into Mississippi’s systemic issues and sheds light on responses to them in other communities. Beyond just reporting on problems, these stories interrogate their causes and inspect potential solutions.